Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Aggtown"}} 5], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Aggtown"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Aggtown"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 all. This was relisted recently, but it seems to me that consensus has been pretty clearly established. Sourcing is insufficient for an article here at this time. GlassCobra 01:26, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Not notable group. WP:MUSIC I cannot find any reliable sources. There are lots of links on the page, but they are all to sites where anyone can post music. Some songs are 'charted' but it is from SoundClick a site for self-promotion, not a national/significant chart. Clubmarx (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I am also nominating the following related pages as these are Aggtown albums/song articles all created by the same person, today:
I agree with your nomination for these...perhaps they should be merged instead?
Clubmarx, how can Aggtown's OFFICIAL website be unreliable? To verify biographical information, I checked out all profiles claimed to be Aggtown's as well as emailing the webmaster of the official website. I've checked all the links as well and see nothing unreliable about this the Aggtown Wiki claims. Every song and album, as well as chart listings, is 100% accurate. User above claims that SoundClick is not a national/significant chart, yet several significant artists who have been signed by distribution labels are listed on SoundClick. Also, TuneCore, Inc., the label of Aggtown, also distributes music for Jay-Z, Nine Inch Nails and Ziggy Marley. Techno_Expert (talk) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.193.211.15 (talk) 00:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Reliable for what I mean by reliable. Soundclick is not a major chart that establishes notability; here are some accepted charts for notability WP:CHARTS. TuneCore may have major names on it, but being on TuneCore does not make a band notable. TuneCore is not a record label anyway. Clubmarx (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
According to WP:MUSIC, #5 declares that the label (in this case, TuneCore & UMGD) are notable. Major names = notable.
KEEP, meets and succeeds notability per WP:MUSIC. Although Aggtown does not have chart success on the charts listed on WP:CHARTS, this is NOT a requirement per WP:MUSIC. Besides that, SoundClick is not listed as a non-notable chart on WP:CHARTS. This artist DOES meet requirement #5, which is satisfied by the artist's current label(s). TuneCore is a partner of Universal Music Group Distribution[1], both of which have a list of notable artists (mentioned above and on the Wiki). TuneCore also awards music certifications[2]-- one of the primary purposes of a record label; therefore, the validity is proven. Additionally, TuneCore releases more albums/singles in single day than any other label distributes in a full year[3]. I find this very notable. Please note that TuneCore also MUST approve all music distributed...it isn't just a self-serve distributor. Aggtown can be found on iTunes and any other major music merchant, and if you examine the artist details, you will see that the record label is indeed listed (on all sites, and where not listed you can contact the site to retrieve the label's name). Here is an example: http://www.lala.com/#album/2306124484406495274. Aggtown has also released two or more albums.
Only ONE criterion must be met. See WP:MUSIC. Aggtown fulfills #5 of this requirement.
Quick question for everyone...why do people keep ignoring the fact that only ONE criteria must be met? Failure to notice leads to confusion. It is obvious that #5 of WP:MUSIC has clearly been met-- if you don't think so, by all means look up Aggtown on ANY major music merchant and you will see. It doesn't matter if they don't have a chart notability....#5 of WP:MUSIC has been fulfilled and one and only one criterion must be met. Aggtown is a valid entry. It appears that some users are ignoring #5 and focusing on the WP:CHARTS argument. I would like to inform everyone that not every artist appears on those charts...especially independent artists (which I think is unfair to exclude). Techno Expert (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As far as third-party, reliable sources, I do believe iTunes, eMusic, DJTUNES, etc qualifies. It may be advised to send these companies queries to determine the exact label for Aggtown.
Recommendation: Aggtown biographical information be removed or downsized due to lack of third-party biographical sources; however, the Discography has been verified via iTunes etc along with the SoundClick charts (which are independent and non-notable but not listed on non-notable of WP:CHARTS). I find the music group very notable concerning #5 WP:MUSIC, despite having no rankings on WP:CHARTS-- it is obvious that Aggtown has released two or more albums on an independent label. This label may need verification however. See comments below.
Comment: It seems this band was never signed to any label; distributing music on a music upload site is not a record label. Clubmarx (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: TuneCore is not a music upload site. It is a distribution service that has partnered with Universal Music Group Distribution to deliver music. Also, I believe that in one of the reference articles it was discussed that TuneCore would soon be managing licensing etc....essentially the functions of a label. I may need clarification on the definitions of a music label. Are you aware that according to DJTUNES and various other stores, Aggtown uses a label by the name Aggtown Records (NOT TuneCore) in addition to TuneCore's services? To determine if DJTUNES was another distributor like TuneCore, I tried to register as my "own" label but was told that all labels undergo review and must receive approval from the DJTUNES administrators prior to selling releases for their artists. Obviously, Aggtown Records received approval because they are listed as the record label (not TuneCore). I've noticed that in some stores, TuneCore/Aggtown Records is listed as the label but in others it's just Aggtown Records. I believe that this means that Aggtown Records is the label and TuneCore is the distributor. I tried to find information about the Aggtown Records label but could find very little, so I'm not sure if they're a certified label or not. But as I mentioned about DJTUNES, I was told that ALL labels undergo critical review and must receive approval; thus, I believe Aggtown is signed to a label by the name Aggtown Records. I will be contacting the music group to determine if their label is certified or not. Techno Expert (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Although TuneCore is a music distribution service, would it not be considered a major netlabel? This is where it falls into gray area, because if it could be considered a major netlabel then that would mean it is a notable independent label, especially with its list of notable clients. If TuneCore does not qualify, then the argument shifts to Aggtown Records. This may well possibly be a independent label but I am anaware of any prominent clients aside from Aggtown. Techno Expert (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
CONCLUDED: I have left all comments and debates above intact to avoid vandalism claims. After spending the majority of today researching Aggtown and Aggtown Records and all this mess I've been dragging out, I've come to an agreement with the comments and claims of Clubmarx and Esradekan. Sorry guys, I was just trying to get facts so that Wiki didn't delete without reason. I am fairly new to Wikipedia and do not know all the laws of the land here. Apparently, after much digging, it appears that Aggtown Records IS a netlabel-- however it is disqualified from #5 of WP:MUSIC because the independent label does not have any other artists besides Aggtown. Therefore, its notability is not enough to sustain for Aggtown. Yes, officially Aggtown HAS released two or more albums (two albums and one single, according to their label), but because the group is only signed with a non-notable label, my previous argument is invalid. I was a little confused into thinking that TuneCore was actually a label because they do distribution, music certifications, and Billboard chart entries. Plus, they are partners with Universal Music Group Distribution (a very notable label), and TuneCore also has many notable artists. This was my argument behind #5 of WP:MUSIC; however, because TuneCore is apparently not a label my claim is invalid. I would like to point out that if TuneCore was a label or if it did merge with UMGD then my claim WOULD be valid. I was quite frustrated that Wiki members were recommending deletion solely based on the fact that Aggtown was not listed on a notable chart from WP:CHARTS. This is NOT a requirement for notability, so I hope everyone remembers that for future deletions of other bands. And there are some gray-area criteria of WP:MUSIC that I think Wikipedia should review and improve. From my recent communications with Aggtown's manager, it appears that they will be terminating music production by the end of this year so that their lead DJ can start a solo career. This indicates that future Aggtown inclusion to Wikipedia will be unlikely. I will continue to monitor Aggtown to determine if a future Wiki entry would be valid; however, for now it is invalid and should be removed from Wikipedia. I must say that this process has been an adventure, although I am a little disappointed that all my hard work and research for the Wiki article has gone to waste. I want to thank Clubmarx and Esradekan for your feedback and contributions to this debate.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisting comment: I have relisted this AfD to solicit more opinions. Aside from the nominator, only two experienced editors have commented in this debate. Cunard (talk) 00:58, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Rahim Oberholtzer"}} 14], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Rahim Oberholtzer"}} 2], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Rahim Oberholtzer"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:11, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Prince PaÅŸazade Timur Can"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Prince PaÅŸazade Timur Can"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Prince PaÅŸazade Timur Can"}} 0]
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"African admixture in Europe"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"African admixture in Europe"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"African admixture in Europe"}} 0]
Editor Count: 15 Creator: Muntuwandi Nominator: Small Victory
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Muntuwandi has recreated the Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe article under a slightly different name, but it contains much of the same content (plus a lot more of his OR and POV) that was deleted and merged, in more condensed and neutral form, into the Genetic history of Europe article. SOPHIAN was blocked recently for doing the same thing. If there's any justice, Muntuwandi will be blocked as well, adding to his already spotty record. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:25, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to Admins - These two editors and Sophian, and what appears to be a new entry Victorius_III, a possible sock-puppet of Small Victory have been engaged in a disruptive edit war on the Genetic History of Europe. It is roughly impossible now to make constructive edits on the pages because of all the reverts that are going on. Another editor and I were trying to make changes to the references on the page but those changes were repeated reverted. Muntawandis claim of go it alone editing by Small Victory is roughly true now for the Subsaharan Admixture section in Genetic History of Europe. I would not normally support a fork such as this, unless something is done the reign in the behaviors of Small Victory on the Genetic History of Europe page, a page such as this is the only way to balance the points of view. Small Victory, where are the references (precisely) for the data you keep reverting back to?PB666yap 14:09, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
at least the reasoning here is incorrect. SV and Sophian were the primary editors of that page with their POV, this one is written by Muntawandi with his POV.PB666yap 20:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC) Here is the previous AfD2 Sub-Saharan_DNA_admixture_in_Europe
Excuse me PB666, but I've fought against both Muntuwandi's and SOPHIAN's OR/POV edits. My version of the 'SSA admixture' section is the most neutral. You yourself found virtually nothing wrong with it compared to Muntuwandi's, which you picked apart and argued against vehemently. Now all of a sudden you're taking his side and insisting that the data in my version is not properly sourced, even though I showed you that it is. Have you completely lost your mind? ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:57, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
People, please! This here should only be a discussion on the deletion of African admixture in Europe. Let us keep other matters for their correct places. Thanks. The Ogre (talk) 13:10, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND for Small Victory fighting Sophian or Muntawandi. That is the reason he created this new page, because you and your apparent sock have blocked posting with the complete reversions. Your version was and still is the worst version, and you have material in that version that is not properly referenced and which I removed and you returned in violation of WP:VERIFY.PB666yap 03:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
1) I've used no sock. Don't make outrageous accusations without any evidence to back them up. 2) You concluded that my version was better than Muntuwandi's. Now you're saying the opposite, but you've offered no explanation as to why. 3) All of the material in my version in properly referenced. If you believe something isn't, then cite specifics and I'll set you straight. Don't be vague. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:14, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Again you have missed the point, it is not about setting me strait, it is about improving the encyclopedia, it is about correcting errors and material that is warranted and removing material that is unverified or unencyclopedia either by its nature or the way in which it is presented. You keep turning this into a battle of wills.PB666yap 00:29, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Either cite something specific in my version that's not properly sourced or keep quiet. I'm getting tired of your false accusations. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:44, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
I presented the sourced and unsourced information on the talk page, you failed to cite your sources and fix the mangle of references, consequently as per WP:VERIFY I retained the numbers that were clearly referenced (In a table with the references right next to the value). It is your job to cite the reference that verifies the values you present. Once again we see the arrogance come forth that plagues the pages that you edit. This is not only a problem with this section but many other sections on the page have problems. I would support a AfD for the deletion of Genetic history of Europe if it came forth, unless we can see an environment of cooperation, the alternative is to ban certain individuals (Small Victory, Muntuwandi, SOPHIAN) from editing the page.PB666yap 16:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Are you blind? I showed you the Table where almost all of the mtDNA figures come from. Try looking at it. At the far right you'll see a column called "Sub-Saharan". That's where the figures were obtained. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
When did you show me this table, and where in that table are the percentages you listed in the article given? Lets not confuse the facts, here, you bundled up the data derived from several references into a single reference, without, in the reference, pointing as to which data came from which paper (more or less you were trying to bluff a reference thinking no-one would check it out). To top that off, the majority of percentages that you referenced were not given as percentages, you did that little synthesis yourself.WP:SYNTHESIS To the admins, take a look at the page history for Genetic History of Europe, and take a look at the kind of POV we are dealing with here.PB666yap 03:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
More complex calculations (for instance, those involving statistics) should not be used to build an argument, because they require skills that common educated readers do not possess, or involve a large number of steps that may not be obvious, making it difficult to detect errors. - WP:NOTOR
Population frequencies are a statistic. And some of the %s you gave were based on single occurances, which means a confidence interval is relevant (but not given) nor did you disclose that you had converted the numbers from absolute frequency in a sample to relative frequency as a percent. So now that we have seen the table where you got your percentages you now disclose this is original research. Another editor has posted and original research tag on the other section which you have edited in direct response to your edits. Are you still going to stand by the position that you referenced the material properly, because we can take this to the NOR.PB666yap 03:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
"Soon it became evident that editors who rejected a majority view would often marshal sources to argue that a minority view was superior to a majority view—or would even add sources in order to promote the editor's own view. Therefore, the NOR policy was established in 2003 to address problematic uses of sources. The original motivation for NOR was to prevent editors from introducing fringe views in science, especially physics—or from excluding verifiable views that, in the judgement of editors, were incorrect.[1] - WP:No_original_research/history
I showed you that table when you first brought up the issue on the talk page, so I wasn't trying to "bluff" anything. It's not my fault your reading comprehension is so low. Of course it's "absolute frequency in a sample". Did you think they tested every individual in each country? That's standard practice in science, testing random samples and extrapolating results to the whole. If you think it's "OR", you could just cite the numbers without calculating the frequency (e.g. 2/346), but that would be even less encyclopedic and more confusing to the average reader. Anyway, no one's ever had a problem with this, and your retarded mtDNA table includes percentages too. I guess it's only OR when other people do it. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
My reading comprehension is so low that I did not see a single of your proclaimed percentages on that page (because there are no percentages on the page!) and therefore discounted that you could have possibly used that source for Wikipedia. Neither did you disclose you had converted absolute frequencies in a sample to relative frequencies as a percent. Again, read the NOR guidelines. If you had disclosed the fact you had converted the data then I would have realized that this was your source. I assumed that the percentages were given in the actual source (see footnotes) as a consequence, no direct reference, original data, improper referencing on the page. I eliminated only those that had a direct references. The word absolute frequency means that they were not converted to relative frequency and from there converted to a percent. In the sample with small N (1 to 10) there should be an associated confidence interval otherwise you are forcing the reader to assume that N was large enough that relative variance was not a problem. The 95% confidence interval for 1 in X where X is a large number extends from a frequency of 1/(X*20) to 5/X or approximately a 100 fold range, there are a total of 11 "1"s; 8 "2s", found under the Subsaharan L listing.
As for the table, until you can show an original source for the percentages, everything should go. Including East-Asian contribution.PB666yap 19:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Small Victory has convinced me that we need to Keep African_admixture_in_Europe.PB666yap 04:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
This is indeed a new article, but I see many of the same problems may be occurring or about to occur. Rather than judging that straight away, I'd like to raise the question of what this article needs. Effectively the previous article became a back and forth edit war, (swinging between different fork version) because the science itself was not up to what some editors wanted it to say. I notice for example the emphasis on the slave trade again which is not really justified by the cherry picked references used. I think if editors can not agree first on what the Genetic History of Europe article's content should be concerning African admixture, then making this article looks like a way of escaping the need to be able to build a neutral consensus?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 23:14, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
With SV around there is no way to build a consensus, he simply does a full revert back to his favored version.PB666yap 03:32, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
SOPHIAN, The Ogre and Victorius III all prefer my version. You did too before you inexplicably switched sides. Causteau has always supported my edits on this subject. Andrew opposes everything I do, but can never point to anything substantive being wrong with it (e.g. the reference to slavery is properly sourced). And Muntuwandi obviously doesn't like my version because it's too neutral. So including me, that's 5 against 3. And really it's 6 against 2 because you're schizophrenic. And until Andrew can produce something concrete it's like 7 against 1, which leaves Muntuwandi all alone with his OR and POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
The point SV, NPOV requires us _not to take sides_ (you still don't get it, this side taking has ruined several pages) in addition others reverted your version. I left certain materials on the page initially until I had checked the references. After I had checked the references I realized that too much material, difficult to verify, difficulty to read, and non-encyclopedic was present in your section. You have made no effort what-so-ever on your part to correct the situation. Therefore I am looking at it from the encyclopedic point of view, and that basic view is that page is an eyesore for the naive reader, and those sections with trivia thrown into the text make it more-so. You have not properly referenced the material, its not whether they could if they searched hard enough, it whether you make verifyability transparent enough that the reader would not have to take half the afternoon. As Andrew points out the contribution from Slavery cannot be verified, and the very nature of molecular genetics (which myself and Andrew both work with) makes it such that after a certain amount of time we cannot conclude where the source of genetic contribution comes from. This is the reason why I moved the SSA section to NA contributions, because in fact SSA contributions are a statistical alternative in some instances to direct N. African contribution. In most cases NA reaches maximum likelihood, in some cases West Africa reaches Maximum Likelihood. Examples of West African Preference over NA include the Cw*16 allele found in Europe. I repeat this one more time, the science weighs in the direction of N. Africa, but it does not weigh entirely in that direction, and if you are not representing that point of view, then your point of view is not neutral. In addition, if you continue to delete minutely contrasting points of view in favor of your own, then you are exercising a Non-NPOV. As long as you work toward complete obstruction of others work, I think Muntawandi is justified in creating this Fork.PB666yap 19:16, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. As long as the article is not politicized, it is potentially a very useful and informative article on the Genetic histories of Europe and Africa. it is a problem if some users already have preset agendas, or ideas about what content should be in the article. As long as we let the scientific studies speak for themselves, rather than engaging in original research, a la Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Analyzing_charts, then we should be fine. One possible issue though, is coming up with the most appropriate name for the article Wapondaponda (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Politicizing the article? Having preset agendas about what should be included? Engaging in original research? You're describing yourself. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment The nominator of this article Small Victory, is largely a single purpose account, whose edits has largely been restricted to the deleted Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, its talk page and a handful of related articles. This is evident in his edit count profile. In more than three years of editing, he has only edited 23 unique articles. SV has less than 200 live edits as over 100 edits were deleted along with the SSA article. Since the deletion, Small Victory has since shifted his edits to Genetic history of Europe. As the owner of the deleted SSA article, Small Victory was unable to collaborate with other editors who had genuine concerns about the POV of the deleted article. As a result the article was deleted. It is not that an article on African admixture in Europe is not valid, rather it is concerns about POV forking, that have lead to its deletion. At some stage, whether beginning now or in the future, studies will continue to reveal more information on the extent and nature of African/Sub-Saharan genetic influences in Europe. Just because some editors find the topic unpleasant, is no reason not to address in important aspect of both European and African history. If we all agreed to address the article objectively and based on reliable sources rather than gamesmanship, we can create a comprehensive article. Small Victory et al. have pushed an extreme POV and have prevented anyone from adding any material to the articles that doesn't show negligible levels of African admixture. They have also prevented any studies that show admixture from anything other than the recent slave trade. In short Small Victory and co. have tried to show that the only African admixture in Europe is either North African or negligible and the little African admixture that is present is only due to slaves. [1][2][3]
This has already been discussed, and your record/editing history was shown to be much more questionable than mine. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
The scope of the article African admixture in Europe, covers possible influences of African slaves, but it also objectively covers African admixture from other sources. Where African admixture is negligible, the current version states so. But it also covers sources of admixture that may be significant. The previous deleted versions tried to make a clear cut distinction between North African influences and Sub-Saharan influences. Whereas contemporary studies clearly show that such a clear cut distinction is not valid. I think this is the most objective NPOV way to cover this topic. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Extended content
You're trying to obscure the distinction between North African and Sub-Saharan African influences, which is about as POV as it gets and a classic tactic of Afrocentrism. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:49, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
That is not POV, it is the norm in population genetics. In general, human genetic variation is distributed along Clines. Sub-Saharan Africa and North Africa, being neighboring regions, are no exception to this pattern. People have been migrating back and forth between North and SSA. There isn't a clear cut distinction between the population genetics of North Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa as there is significant overlap. See Race_(classification_of_human_beings)#Clines for further details. Attempts to make such clear distinction between North African and SSA population genetics, are in fact POV and this was the case in the previous article that was deleted. Tuaregs from Libya, clearly show that even today, no such clear cut distinction exists. Wapondaponda (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
North Africans and Sub-Saharan Africans are separate populations with separate genetic histories. Even your precious Y-chromosome indicates this:
Together, these genetic analyses highlighted the similarity between northeastern Africa and the Middle East and the clear genetic differentiation between northwestern Africa and both sub-Saharan Africa and Europe, including Iberia. The Sahara and Mediterranean, despite the narrow width of the Strait of Gibraltar, seem to have acted as effective long-term barriers to Y-chromosomal gene flow.
[...]
Such a finding is not surprising, in the light of the earlier genetic studies, but has an important implication: despite haplogroups shared at low frequency, suggesting limited gene flow, North African populations have a genetic history largely distinct from both Europe and sub-Saharan Africa over the timescales needed for the Y-chromosomal differentiation to develop.
The "genetic Pan-Africanism" that you're proposing in this article and elsewhere is textbook OR and POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Arredi et al have taken a micro-approach, ie short-term. Yes E-M81(or E3b2, E1b1b1b) is largely restricted to North Africa, with frequencies above 50% and as high as 80% in some Berber populations. M-81 has been detected in Iberia at frequencies of 5% in some regions. So there is indeed a sharp drop in frequencies from North Africa across Gibralter to Iberia. Five percent M81 admixture in Iberia is still statistically significant though. M-81 is largely absent from Sub-Saharan Africa, with the exception of Mali and Niger. The distribution of M81 his is what Arredi et al describe as being distinct from the regions to the south and the North. However E-M81 is still part of the E3b family which has its origins in Sub-Saharan Africa. Even though the Berbers are generally "Caucasoid" peoples. Their ancestry is primarily of Sub-Saharan origin via the y-chromosome and not Eurasian, though at least 20% are haplogroup J which is of Eurasian origin. Their Sub-Saharan ancestry is confirmed by the presence of Sub-Saharan Autosomal markers as indicated here.
Arredi et al state
The M35 lineage (see the phylogeny in for marker locations) is thought to have arisen in East Africa, on the basis of its high frequency and diversity there (Cruciani et al. 2004; Semino et al. 2004), and to have given rise to M81 in North Africa.
Thus, although Moroccan Y lineages were interpreted as having a predominantly Upper Paleolithic origin from East Africa (Bosch et al. 2001), according to our TMRCA estimates, no populations within the North African samples analyzed here have a substantial Paleolithic contribution.
Under the hypothesis of a Neolithic demic expansion from the Middle East, the likely origin of E3b in East Africa could indicate either a local contribution to the North African Neolithic transition (Barker 2003) or an earlier migration into the Fertile Crescent, preceding the expansion back into Africa.
Those quotes all say "East Africa", not "Sub-Saharan Africa". The only mention of Sub-Saharan ancestry in that study relates to E3a and L mtDNA. Anyway, the authors' conclusion about North African Y-chromosomes doesn't involve either of those regions. That's all your own original research. Here's what they actually say:
...the North African pattern of Y-chromosomal variation is largely of Neolithic origin. Thus, we propose that the Neolithic transition in this part of the world was accompanied by demic diffusion of Afro-Asiatic-speaking pastoralists from the Middle East. [...] These people could have carried, among others, the E3b and J lineages, after which the M81 mutation arose within North Africa and expanded along with the Neolithic population into an environment containing few humans.
So yes, North Africans are in fact Eurasian via their Y-chromosome, not Sub-Saharan African. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:56, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
One can almost feel the confusion swirling in Arredi's mind as he is trying to reconcile the "Caucasoid" appareance of Berbers, with their Sub-Saharan ancestry. Keita is forthright on this and argues that Berbers are indigenous Africans, who evolved their "caucasoid" appearance in-situ in Africa[4]. East Africa is sub-saharan Africa, so what the authors have come up with is pseudo distinction between East Africa and Sub-Saharan Africa. They have also proposed a migration of E3b into the levant and then a back-migration to Africa of E3b lineages. While this may have occurred to account for the small presence of E-V13 (0.9%) in Egypt, there is no phylogenetic evidence of a back-migration of E3b lineages from the Levant. See the latest study Cruciani et al 2007. The African E-M81 is predominant, 80% among berbers, and Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups predominate among Berbers approximately 60-70%. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Sound and referenced. No valid rationale for deletion beyond animosity of certain editors.Biophys (talk) 05:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
See [6] for my comments during my attempt to close this the first time. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:15, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Appears to be referenced, although many of the refs are not available free online. Why would anyone assume there was some not degree of mixture between the populations of adjacent continents? (Aryan purity fantasies aside). Edison (talk) 19:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Straw man. No one has ever said that this article should be deleted because there's been no admixture. Your crusade against "Aryan purity fantasies" belongs elsewhere and is not a reason to keep the article, which has already been deleted twice and should remain that way. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:22, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep I see no reason not to have a specialized article. DGG ( talk ) 22:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
The subject is already dealt with at length in the Genetic history of Europe article. Merging content is what was decided upon when the original version of the article was deleted. Muntuwandi has blatantly gone against the consensus. RoySmith only reluctantly relisted the article, believing that a speedy deletion is in order. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:31, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Explaining the problem. I think the concern is that the animosity we see is partly driven by some issues within this subject matter. Probably the biggest source of animosity, if I understand correctly, is that there are two strong ways of feeling about the subject of whether to contrast sub Saharan Africans with Northern Africans. For example, some people prefer to write about Europeans, West Asians and North Africans as three sub-sets of a relatively unified group, which is relatively distinct from sub Saharan Africans. Others prefer to emphasize that North Africans and sub Saharan Africans are closely related to each other in many ways. Both sides are right and if this article is going to work both these ideas need some treatment. (This is why this article has more chance than the previous one, which had a title that insisted on taking a side so to speak.) Logically, there is no conflict between these two positions, because there really are these connections and differences. But the resulting debates are sometimes difficult to turn into anything neutral. By the way, I think the title needs the addition of a word like "Population" or else it is not clear what is being mixed. I googled a bit and this seemed the most common word outside of wikis (in contrast to "genetic" or "DNA").--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 08:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is even worse than the previous one because of its vagueness, and that's exactly how Muntuwandi wants it. He calls it "African admixture" but in his mind (and, he hopes, in the minds of casual readers) that equals Sub-Saharan or black African. This is evidenced by his original version, which still opened with "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture...". This article is a clone of the old one, only with a deliberately misleading title that allows Muntuwandi to insert even more OR and POV.
There's no justification whatsoever for an article that treats North, East and Sub-Saharan African ancestry from all different periods of history as if it were this monolithic entity. There exists no article called "Asian admixture in Europe" that treats Arab influences, Mongol influences, Neolithic West Asian ancestry, and the Paleolithic migration of haplogroup R from Central Asia as a single entity. So there shouldn't be this ridiculous article either. It's pure Afrocentric POV. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think Small Victory's remarks demonstrate the problem. He accuses the article of vagueness, but he is vague about what is vague in the article. Reading all his remarks together seems to show that what he he wants made more definite specifically is about distinguishing sub Saharan Africans as much as possible from other people, and not just a bit. OTOH he thinks Muntuwandi wants the opposite, which may or more not be true, but which is irrelevant as long as he keeps it to himself. Because Muntuwandi is restraining himself better therefore, we see Small Victory accusing Muntuwandi about things which he has not insisted on putting in the article. A big problem happens when people start editing based on trying to compensate for what they think are biases in the community, even when these biases are not clearly being put into any articles.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
I think most contemporary studies are in agreement that North African populations have a genetic profile that is intermediate between Sub-Saharan Africa and Eurasia, though closer to Eurasia than to Sub-Saharan Africa. The abstracts of these two articles will confirm this. [7], [8]. What is controversial, is the notion that prehistoric North Africa, was essentially an ecological extension of Sub-Saharan Africa during the wet phases of the Sahara. Wapondaponda (talk) 18:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Abstain w/ comment. The debate here is not about whether the topic should be covered or not, but whether it should be covered in its own article or as a section of a more comprehensive article. The bottom line is that it doesn't really matter. The core problem is that the editors working on these articles cannot agree on what should be said. Until that dispute is resolved, nothing else really matters, and the outcome of this AfD won't help resolve that. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
DELETE once and for all, for the love of God! Does anyone seriously believe that Wapondaponda intended this article to be different than the previous one when his initial version of it still began "Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe refers to..."? And then when his goof was pointed out to him, he fixed it but didn't modify the article's content accordingly? Give me a break. It's like replacing creationism with intelligent design. Nothing has changed except the name. He's pulling a fast one, and you're all falling for it. Wake up, people! ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agreed! The Ogre (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The above "Delete" comment by Small Victory and "agreed" comment by Ogre, are somewhat redundant because Small Victory is the nominator of this AFD, and Ogre has already expressed his opinion. Wapondaponda (talk) 22:13, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
That you think an article needs to be improved is obviously not a reason for deletion, especially if you are saying you know how to improve it. Can you please give a valid argument and leave out all the childish stuff? The clearest thing you've said so far is that the problem is notability, but you really have not explained this any further. Why is this subject matter not notable?--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 16:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Try to follow the argument, Andrew. The previous article was deleted. This article is nothing but a poorly disguised clone of that one. Therefore, it should be deleted too. Period. I never said I thought it needed to be improved. What it needs is to be gone because it serves no purpose, and I've already explained clearly why. You just don't pay attention. Everything that could possibly be said in this article is already covered in Genetic history of Europe. There's no separate "Asian admixture in Europe" article or "African admixture in Asia" article, so there shouldn't be this one either. And in fact, that's what was decided last time, as I've demonstrated. And since this article is just a clone of the last one, the decision still stands. ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I made that last deletion proposal, and many people said I worded the case OK for them, and I for one do not see anything automatic about the connection. Please address the case here in hand, not other editors, and not other cases, and not hidden agendas, or possible future scenarios. Otherwise people will tend to ignore you, and that might even be a shame because for all I know you have a point. (Note that I have not voted.) Now, you said the reason was notability? Please explain. I for one will ignore anything about it being obvious and simply all to do with Afrocentrism or what happened in another article or what you think an editor will do if this article is allowed to exist.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 19:26, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Article is well sourced and referenced, and notable. It also incorporates a different angle from other articles, that even though some material overlaps, there is enough new info in place for this effort to stand by itself. Recommend keep. Migueljackson (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The above comment is not signed. MJ can be checked just to clear him and others. However, his edits seem to be in good faith, and so far, I have seen no reason to suggest otherwise. He could just be an anonymous reader who found the article interesting and decided to chime in while maintaining his privacy by creating an account. Wapondaponda (talk) 12:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
I have suggested that he can be checked, to clear others, since naturally there is a lot of suspicion here. Wapondaponda (talk) 13:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
moved text out of collapse per diffWapondaponda (talk) 22:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Well, a decision was made last time to delete the article and cover the topic in Genetic history of Europe because it was deemed not notable enough in its own right. Muntuwandi has defied that decision and recreated the article, so the obvious answer is that it should be speedily deleted, as per your recommendation. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
That was not the basis of the deletion. At least part of why the other article was deleted had to do with the lack of clear neutral sources concerning the distinction that article made concerning sub Saharans. In that vacuum the article had become a POV fork, full of OR. This does not automatically apply to this current article.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 10:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Incorrect. That was your reason. However, 2/3 of the delete votes were for the reasons I stated:
Delete Strike me as being an essay. If someone wants to include some of it in a broader topic that might be okay. But this seems to be an argument and not encyclopedic. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete [...] this entry serves no good function. It covers a subject matter which should be dealt with more briefly as part of the more general Genetic history of Europe entry. PelleSmith (talk) 03:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge into Genetic history of Europe. Jingby (talk) 18:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete or merge [...] Slrubenstein | Talk 13:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Merge into Genetic history of Europe. [...] PB666 yap 22:57, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability of subject not established. [...] Alun (talk) 12:07, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
Anyway, this article is full of the same OR and POV, just repackaged. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:58, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
ChildofMidnight comparing it to an essay means OR, and note the proposal that the article might fit in a broader one which is being proposed now by Wapondaponda.
The words you come from PelleSmith say "per nom", ie. that it is in agreement with what I wrote.
Slrubenstein was specific in raising concerns about how "it doesn't make sense to rely on this information to make grand typological claims". In other words the dogmatism of the article, given the less certain state of the sources, was considered an issue.
PB666 also raised poor sourcing "What is actually the basis of this article" and specifically about the definition of the subject matter, and anyway he has posted this time also and can speak for himself about whether his previous comments apply to this article.
You make no mention of Wikiscribe's posting which said "on the side of Andrew Lancaster's rationale"
You have deleted Alun's comment that the article looked like a POV fork.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Here's the full breakdown of opinions given on that deletion page:
Not notable/Merge: 4
POV-fork: 2
Both: 3
Keep: 1
Thus, the main reasons for deletion were the ones I stated. ---- Small Victory (talk) 10:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This summary is meaningless, and filters and distorts even worse than your previous summary. Furthermore you keep loosing the point. The basic point relevant here is that the reasons for deletion discussed in detail in that case do not obviously apply here, because a very big part of all concern was about the distinction being made between sub Saharan genetic influences in Europe, and more generally African ones i.e. whether there was any neutral and properly sourced way to define and discuss them without OR - whether that OR be "Afrocentrist" or "Overcompensating against perceived Afrocentrism". (I think different versions of the article had both.) Pretty everyone expressed some level of concern about this, and it was clearly the major theme of discussion.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Just admit you were wrong, Andrew. Almost no one "expressed concern" about original research or the specifics of the subject. That's all in your head. Besides, RoySmith says this isn't about content. It's about whether the topic should have an article of its own or be part of the "Genetic history of Europe" article. The community decided on the latter. Case closed. ---- Small Victory (talk) 11:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
You have tangents from tangents from tangents, and each time getting further from the point, and always headed towards being personal. The shame is that if there is anything to your opinion no one is going to notice it behind all the non sequiturs. Let me try to help. All of the above is supposedly your case arguing that this article should be deleted because the subject has already recently been agreed to be non-notable. I have pointed out that compared to the recent discussion you referred to, the subject matter appears to have changed in some potentially important ways, making it non obvious that we can simply apply previous opinions again.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Nothing has changed except the title, which Wapondaponda has broadened so that he can include more POV. How can you be so blind to his schemes? If this is really an article about African admixture in Europe, then where's the section on Berbers and E-M81, discussing possible links with the Moors? Where's the reference to North African U6 in Europeans? Where are the facts that E-M78 and M1a originated in Northeast Africa? Nowhere. Wapondaponda's focus remains squarely on Sub-Saharan Africa, and he only mentions North Africa when he needs to within that context. But he's deceptively renamed the article to get it viewed as something new. And unfathomably, you and others are falling for his ruse.
And then we have to ask, even if the article were legitimately expanded to cover all of Africa, what's so notable about this particular subject? Africans have also influenced Asia, but there's no "African admixture in Asia" article. Europeans also have low-levels of Asian admixture, but there's no "Asian admixture in Europe" article. The only reason this article exists is for Wapondaponda to propound his Afrocentric POV. I would suggest that he get a blog instead because that's not what Wikipedia is for. ---- Small Victory (talk) 13:47, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
OK, now at least you are talking about articles and not editors, to some extent. These points you see as missing though, which claim would improve the article, these are not arguments for deleting an article but rather for adding to them. Your question about notability is kind of funny given all the attention you and Muntawandi give the subject. People are interested in this subject, and there is stuff written about it. My main concern has been whether enough has been written that a neutral scientific article can be built without turning into a POV war, but many of the arguments we saw in the previous article had precisely to do with silly discussions about the definition of sub Saharan. (For example according to your personal definitions which you wanted everyone to follow on that subject a Nubian is sub Saharan and an Ethiopian is not, a difference you need to make precisely because of the way the peoples of Africa are inter-related and also inter related with peoples of the Middle East and Miedterranean, and also you pushed for an idea that a genotype which originated post LGM in sub Saharan Africa was still not sub Saharan unless scientists had defined no sub Saharan sub-clades.)--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I have never said that Nubians are Sub-Saharan. Where do you come up with this stuff? ---- Small Victory (talk) 12:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to refactor some of the comments that are related to the AFD for another article. Some users may confuse these comments as relating to this AFD, when in fact they don't. Wapondaponda (talk) 11:11, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
This article is a complete disaster. A great deal of the information posted is filled with inaccuracies, distortion and outrageous lies. We have informed genetics and molecular biology departments at the following universities about this article: University of Chicago, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford, Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Brown, U. Michigan, UCal Berkeley, Yale and Washington University in Saint Louis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by London Hawk (talk • contribs) 16:38, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
These are references from the previously deleted article. Many of them aren't formatted, but this is roughly how they appeared in the article. Reference number 13 is a collection of 7 different publications.
Wilson et al. (2001) Population Genetic Structure of Variable Drug Response. Nat Genet; 29:265-269: "Notably, 62% of the Ethiopians fall in the first cluster, which encompasses the majority of the Jews, Norwegians and Armenians, indicating that placement of these individuals in a 'Black' cluster would be an inaccurate reflection of the genetic structure. Only 24% of the Ethiopians are placed in the cluster with the Bantu and most of the Afro-Caribbeans."
The History and Geography of Human Genes, Luigi Luca Cavalli-Sforza, Paolo Menozzi, Alberto Piazza, pp. 170-171.
O'Neil, Dennis (2007-07-03). "Modern Human Variation: Glossary of Terms". Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College.
Martinez et al. (2007)
Abu-Amero et al. (2007)
Pereira et al. (2005) African female heritage in Iberia: a reassessment of mtDNA lineage distribution in present times
Gonzalez et al. (2003)
Achilli et al. 2007
Malyarchuk et al. (2008). Reconstructing the phylogeny of African mitochondrial DNA lineages in Slavs. doi:10.1038/ejhg.2008.70. .
Rhouda et al. 2006
Richards et al. (2003)
Gonçalves et al. (2003)
Cruciani et al. 2004,
Flores et al. 2004,
Brion et al. 2005,
Brion et al. 2004,
Rosser et al. 2000,
Semino et al. 2004,
DiGiacomo et al. 2003.
Rosenberg et al. 2002
Wilson et al. 2001
Bauchet et al. 2007
Auton et al. 2009
Ragusa et al. 1992
[1]
Pandey et al. 2007
Bolnick et al. 2007
Arnaiz-Villena et al.
Nature
MDS plot
Ayub et al. 2003
dendrogram
High-resolution typing of HLA-DRB1 locus in the Macedonian population
HLA genes in Southern Tunisians (Ghannouch area) and their relationship with other Mediterraneans.
Pier M. Larson, Reconsidering Trauma, Identity, and the African Diaspora: Enslavement and Historical Memory in Nineteenth-Century Highland Madagascar, William and Mary Quarterly 56, no. 2 (1999): 335-62.
Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade: 1440-1870 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 804
These are references from the current version. It may be that the references are quite different from the deleted article.
Frudakis, Tony (2007). "West African ancestry in Southeastern Europe and the Middle East". Molecular photofitting: predicting ancestry and phenotype using DNA. pp. page 326. ISBN0120884925.
Sanchez-Velasco P, Gomez-Casado E, Martinez-Laso J, et al. (May 2003). "HLA alleles in isolated populations from North Spain: origin of the Basques and the ancient Iberians". Tissue Antigens 61 (5): 384–92. PMID12753657.
Choukri F, Chakib A, Himmich H, Raissi H, Caillat-Zucman S (June 2002). "HLA class I polymorphism in a Moroccan population from Casablanca". Eur. J. Immunogenet. 29 (3): 205–11. PMID12047355.
Gómez-Casado et al. (March 2000), "HLA genes in Arabic-speaking Moroccans: close relatedness to Berbers and Iberians", Tissue Antigens 55 (3): 239–49, PMID10777099
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Fractile Games"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Fractile Games"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Fractile Games"}} 0]
Editor Count: 15 Creator: Qwm Nominator: Joe Chill
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
One book source.[9]Ikip (talk) 10:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The [WP] in this entry indicates attribution to Wikipedia, and is therefore unusable. If there are no other sources, then I endorse a delete. Marasmusine (talk) 13:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I am in no way endorsing anything, delete or keep, just mentioning the sole google hit. Ikip (talk) 02:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete – can't even get anything on a regular search in which to reliably-build an article. MuZemike 16:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Border history of Serbia"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Border history of Serbia"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Border history of Serbia"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete With some reluctance. Author has clearly put a significant amount of work into this article, but without appropriate textual content it cannot survive. --Anthony.bradbury"talk" 11:08, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I could've almost speedily deleted this for having little context, but I'm bringing it here in case someone wants to improve it. The article is just a gallery of maps with not much coherent structure, so it's more appropriate for Commons. It's been like this since 2005, so I doubt this can substantially improve anytime soon. Also, the same arguments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Border history of Romania (second nomination) can be applied here. Spellcast (talk) 22:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete At the moment there is no article - just a repository of images! The article could be rescued if someone had the expertise though Francium12 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Totally a non-article. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:Userfication as could have been done originally to avoid a AFD. Ikip (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment -- This is not an article but a collection of maps. As such it might be instructive, but it needs some substantive text to go with it. "Serbia" has meant different things at different times. An article (with text to explain the maps) might be useful, or is that already in somethign like "History of Serbia"? CErtainly, this article cannot survive as it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Even if some maps have mistakes, I believe the article can be "saved" with maps' explanations from experts.--LittleTony (talk) 03:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Very less content, just delete it. PmlineditorTalk 08:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Fails WP:BAND, lacks significant coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
NeutralWeak keep at present. I found very little from Google searches but there was a review in Vice magazine, which appears to have moved from its original URL and they were listed on the cover of Maximumrocknroll, which almost certainly means that there was an article about them inside. Both of these would very likely constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. A case of significant coverage very probably existing but not easily found on the internet.--Michig (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Changing to a weak keep - the Fader article, Vice review, and MAXRNR coverage is probably sufficient for a keep.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sources Francium12 (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment what sources? None have been added to the article and the Google hits above aren't what I'd call "significant coverage in 3rd party reliable sources".--RadioFan (talk) 04:21, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete, not notable local group with self releases only. feydey (talk) 20:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Only self-releases. Nowhere near enough notability. -WarthogDemon 19:22, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 05:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Their records aren't self-released, not sure why people are saying that.Prezbo (talk) 06:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment The discography in the article specifically identifies 2 of the recordings as self released and the low volume produced of the others indicates self release as well. All the record labels claimed in the discography section appear to exist but they all appear to be very very small, and none appear to be notable. Very small record labels could meet notability guidelines here if they are producing niche music that is widely reviewed or referenced but that does not appear to be the case here. --RadioFan (talk) 13:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Their demo tapes are self-releases. The releases on Youth Attack! clearly are not. These are the sort of volumes of pressing that are typical for small labels, and 3,000 copies of their LP being pressed strongly suggests that it sold over 2,000 copies, which is not an insignificant amount for a non-mainstream band.--Michig (talk) 13:32, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Youth Attack! actually has quite a long history of releases ([10]).--Michig (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment Unfortunately the amount of coverage this band has received still appears to be insignificant and not up to notability guidelines. Perhaps a well referenced article on Youth Attack! would help.--RadioFan (talk) 13:38, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete The body of work doesn't appear notable at this point in time. --Stormbay (talk) 04:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Lil' Kim's Fifth Studio Album"}} 0]
Editor Count: 8 Creator: YokoOno Nominator: Taylor Karras
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOWJForget 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Contested PROD. No sufficient information avaliable yet, fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NALBUMS and WP:HAMMER. The fact that she's working on it does not assert notability.Taylor Karras (talk) 22:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No release date - could be a year away, fails WP:CRYSTAL. Francium12 23:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"S. V. Torke"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"S. V. Torke"}} 8], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"S. V. Torke"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
S. V. Torke
Torke's article fails WP:BIO. I have been unable to find reliable sources to establish the subject's notability. You may see the discussion page for additional things.
This article may be deleted or kept per WP:V and WP:BLP as decided by consensus. --Donotask-donottell (talk) 23:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
--Donotask-donottell (talk) 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete it or not
It is difficult to decide whether the article should go or not. It may be worth to contact the contributor who started this article. i did found a bit of references, thats why i added the Infobox... 09:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC) howe—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fngosa (talk • contribs) 09:28 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete due to poor quality, with no prejudice to recreation. --Cybercobra(talk) 00:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: "Private secretary to Government of Karnataka Ministers" is not a note-worthy post.
"Secretary to KDCC Bank" (non-notable bank). Grave POV and peacock term issues. NO RS available on the net, establishing notability. --RedtigerxyzTalk 16:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Mazen Abdul-Jawad"}} 57], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Mazen Abdul-Jawad"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Mazen Abdul-Jawad"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus/splitted on WP:N & WP:EVENTJForget 22:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The subject of this article is notable only for a single event that received negative press coverage; classic violation of the one event policy. He has no other notability and no comprehensive references are available that could be used to give the negative content due weigh. The article should be deleted. Nathan T 22:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep other than WP:IINFO, WP:EVENT is probably one of the most misused policies in deletion discussions. 2 scholar hits, 57 Google news hits. Ikip (talk) 10:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Notability established by substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong delete, lack of coverage beyond the talk show event. As stated, classic violation of WP:BLP1E. –blurpeace(talk) 07:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Brad Maglinger"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Brad Maglinger"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Brad Maglinger"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Non notable person doing ad/graphic work. Nothing seems to meet WP:CREATIVE. There are no reliable references in the article. And google searches do not result in any noteworthy content. Clubmarx (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete seems to be promotional to me. Most likely created by the subject or someone associated with the subject. —Charles Edward(Talk | Contribs) 17:55, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I don't see anything in this article that clearly indicates notability. --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Self-promoting. Notability not established. Pemberton08 (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was merge to pub crawl. Tone 17:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
A weird mix of original research, unsourced speculation, how-to guide and directory. I have no doubt at all that Monopoly pub crawls can and do take place. I have every doubt that being mentioned in passing in an episode of Red Dwarf confers notability on something that could equally well apply to anything listing multiple place-names. – iridescent 20:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Pub crawl along with all the other articles in Category:Pub crawls. If enough verifiable material builds up on any of the pub crawls for a decent sized standalone article they can be split in summary style. By merging them now it would save future AfDs, and also keep the main information in one appropriate place where the crawls can be studied in context. SilkTork *YES! 09:31, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - it's far too long to merge into the existing pub crawl article, and it certainly merits an article - it's a common enough pub crawl, and much easier to do than the almost impossible Circle Line pub crawl. Tris2000 (talk) 11:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - this will make pub crawl far too long. There are lots of famous pub crawls. The Circle Line pub crawl where we try and drink a beer at every stop on the Circe Line is probably more famous. Trust me guys, I live in London, I drink a lot of beer, and this is notable enough to have its own article. Tris2000 (talk) 15:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and merge if wanted. Tris2000's argument that it is too long to merge into pub crawl is dealt with by merging an abbreviated version: it is totally unnecessary to have such extensive coverage of such a fringe topic. I can only assume that "Trust me guys, I live in London, ..." indicates that Tris2000 has limited knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and methods. We do not assess notability by the subjective assessment of involved or interested individuals: we assess it on the basis of substantial independent coverage. No evidence of any independent coverage has so far been shown, either in the article or here. I agree with iridescent's assessment: this is a piece of trivia. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Orchidea Keresztes"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Orchidea Keresztes"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Orchidea Keresztes"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"For the Sins..."}} 17400], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"For the Sins..."}} 5810], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"For the Sins..."}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. JForget 22:00, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No indication that this future album even has a title yet. No confirmation of a release date or any other info. I was unable to find any reliable source info to back p any of the article's claims ThaddeusB (talk) 15:00, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to the Rolling Stone article already linked, there's This from Clash magazine and this from MTV. The no title/no release date rule has been shown several times to be inadequate. A much better criterion for future albums is whether or not they have been recorded. Unrecorded albums are never likely to be notable. Recorded albums by clearly notable artists with multiple significant coverage are generally going to be sufficiently notable even if they remain unreleased. Having said that, I don't know where the supposed title of the album has come from.--Michig (talk) 18:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
If kept, the article should be renamed "Untitled My Chemical Romance" or something similar, as the current title is made up. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. There is no doubt that the album will be notable as it approaches release but there is not enough information about it yet for us to have a useful, verifiable article on it. Also, no idea what the article title is supposed to refer to. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Added reliable references and cleaned up the article. We know the producer and at least one track, has been discussed on MTV and in Rolling Stone. Agree with ThaddeusB that if kept will need to be renamed. J04n(talk page) 23:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Jørn Hagen"}} 159], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Jørn Hagen"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Jørn Hagen"}} 0]
Editor Count: 0 Creator: Dr. Blofeld Nominator: Rettetast
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Cyrus Family"}} 237], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Cyrus Family"}} 129], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Cyrus Family"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The family itself is not notable enough to deserve its own article despite the fame of two of its members. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. The family is sufficiently covered by the articles about its notable members. --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete The notable members of the family have articles. Any mention of the other members of the family can be accommodated at those locations. --Stormbay (talk) 04:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Nan You're a Window Shopper"}} 67], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Nan You're a Window Shopper"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Nan You're a Window Shopper"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Absolute Giblets. The song doesn't lack notability, nor does the artist. I think you need to expand this to say WHY you don't think this song is notable. It's referenced on the net, and it's received national airplay on one or more major radio stations in the UK (inc. BBC Radio 1). I think you're simply testing the AFD process :) Although I have to "assume good faith!". Thor Malmjursson (talk) 13:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not testing anything! I'm not saying the artist lacks notability, just this song. All songs on the album have been reviewed when the album was, so, yes, they all have references on the internet (btw, this article doesn't cite any sources); the thing is, a song is only notable to have its own article when it charted or made media impact. This song hasn't done either. It isn't uncommon for non-single songs to be heard on radio.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 14:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Four days and no more comments? Where is everyone?--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 23:38, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Not Notable Str8cash (talk) 00:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Alright, Still, the album that this song was a bonus track on, as it would be a useful redirect. The song itself is NN. Doc StrangeMailboxLogbook 03:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete (redirecting to the album would be ok) Nothing I can find on Google would establish notability and the article itself provides no sources at all. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:11, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - It is, as User:Iceflow pointed out, a notable song receiving national airplay from a notable artist. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The notability of the artist doesn't matter, and, as I said before, it is not uncommon for songs which are not released as singles to be played on radio. So, please argue the notability of the song; "it is notable" is not an argument. In fact, a song is only notable if it has either made cultural impact or charted somewhere. This song has done neither. Though, I think I just might change my mind about the deletion after seeing the AfDs for A Place With No Name; this song meets the general notability guideline too and has been cited almost all of the times Allen was interviewed about her beginnings in the music industry. Now I don't know what to think anymore. I change my vote to weak delete.--12345abcxyz20082009 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOWJForget 22:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:CRYSTAL. Seriously doubt the title will include the word "Sophmore". No sources aside from Tweets and YouTube videos. The YouTube videos discuss a member leaving, not the album. The Tweets include such definitive statements as "Ooo, this girlicious song, which could be a girlicious single is called ," Grinding." Dope dope! Plus, we all wrote this track! Dope!" and "Oooo ya!!!! This song we recorded tonight is called , "don't go fallen in love "". There doesn't even approach enough material and enough sourcing to make an article, and the current title isn't even salvageable as a redirect. —Kww(talk) 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete without prejudice to recreation once some solid information about the album is available from reliable sources. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Incredibly Hammeriffic album title and only very questionable sources (I tend to never use Twitter as a reliable source, no matter what) to be found. Nate•(chatter) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"FAIL Blog"}} 60], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"FAIL Blog"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"FAIL Blog"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — JakeWartenberg 02:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Lack of significant independent sources to establish notability. — DædαlusContribs 22:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. he is clearly trying to get rid of this blog because i wannted it kept. i would like to see this very funny website kept on wikipedia and let others know about it Chef Blue (talk) 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)This account is a sockpuppet of wikibrah, see their userpage.— DædαlusContribs 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. –túrianpatois 22:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
if you visit the fail blog at http://www.failblog.org/ i think you would change your mind Chef Blue (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Striking sockpuppet edit
Keep: Per this, this, this, this, and these. You might say that a lot of these are mentions, but with so many recommendations from over 20 something popular reliable sources, I'd say that this website is notable. Joe Chill (talk) 22:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I visit the website from time to time and a lot of people i know visit it as well. I have no reference on this but it is absolutely notable in my perspective. Str8cash (talk) 00:16, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Webby Awards are sufficient to establish notability. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - winning a Webby award is good enough notability for me.--UnionhawkTalkE-mail 04:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge with I Can Has Cheezburger?, blogs and mentions in a time article about I Can Has Cheezburger? suggests it is not notable by itself.--Otterathome (talk) 12:44, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
How does winning two Webby Awards show that it isn't notable by itself? Joe Chill (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Webby awards are only done by user-votes and it is likely the I Can Has Cheezburger? network of sites promoted it. This site is part of that network of websites. If more decent non-blog sources were found, then a separate article would be justified.--Otterathome (talk) 13:08, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this. The Webby Award homepage itself says that it has "nearly 70 categories". 70! Are all these 70 websites (per year) notable? Oh, yeah, and every category has two winners, the "Webby Award" winner, and the "People's Voice" winner. And FailBlog didn't even win the Webby Award, it won in the People's Voice category. --Conti|✉ 13:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
"Let's keep the Webby Awards out of this" How about let's try not to boss other users around? Joe Chill (talk) 13:17, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I wasn't bossing anyone around. I was pointing out that "has won a Webby Award" is no evidence of notability. --Conti|✉ 14:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait... let me get this right. Winning a popular vote makes it... non-notable? Metty (talk) 18:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Webby award makes this notable. AniMatedraw 23:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep won a Webby, popular humor website. Falcon8765 (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep the Webby award makes it notable per WP:WEB: The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.. TomCat4680 (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep. I've added more refs today to the article. This has had far more mainstream coverage than I thought (and I generally keep up with internet memes), including a chunk of a piece in the NY Times about how "Fail" is now used as an interjection. I also added the Webby information, though it would be notable without the Webby wins.--Milowent (talk) 14:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep Just take a look at those sources. I haven't seen an article flagged for rescue before, so to me it's crazy (in a good way) for such a small article. Yowuzayadderhouse |meh 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep When an internet meme leads to a neologism and a popular website, people are going to come to wikipedia for info about it. I do think the Controversy section sounds a bit peacocky, though. SithToby (talk) 20:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Vissumo"}} 8], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Vissumo"}} 20], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Vissumo"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete None of the references listed on the article specifically mention Vissumo. Lacks evidence of notability. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 23:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Ulrike Reinhard"}} 36], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Ulrike Reinhard"}} 59], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Ulrike Reinhard"}} 0]
Editor Count: 6 Creator: Triadic2000 Nominator: Hell in a Bucket
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 00:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, Claims notability but google only finds blog records, no thirdy party sources. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
ok ... i will look for references to her work from 3rd parties! (is it correct to leave a message here ?) thanks Triadic2000 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • contribs) 10:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this is the forum for our community to discuss why the article should or should not be included.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 10:19, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
great... i will work on the quality of the article and hope it will be accepted :) thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Triadic2000 (talk • cds, contribs) 10:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comments Could one fix the tag of hangon for an article which is nominated for deletion, through an AfD tag? If so, the author could place one, if he/she could find a third party reference / citation for the article meanwhile. Warm Regards LineofWisdom (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
the only thing that tag will do is to place the article on the list for speedy deletion, which is the opposite of what you presumably want. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. I don't really understand the nomination. Google News offers sufficient sources (interviews and so on), not just blogs.[12]. Not all these sources are for here (there is also a scenographer with the same name), but it seems to be sufficient. Fram (talk) 09:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Note:Relisted for final time for more discussion/better consensus. --JForget 22:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. I'm with Fram; this is probably not the most notable person in the world, but those do look like adequate references for a short article. The first reference already cited in the article appears to be a somewhat reliable source.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 23:12, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
delete - firstly, this article is not sufficiently sourced - most assertions have not been footnoted. See WP:BLP, all assertions about living persons must be sourced. Also, the 3 web sources used might not be reliable sources per WP:RS - it may be hard in this case, as most of the sources you'd want to use might be in the German language; but in any case, I'd prefer at least one dependable book or paper-of-record source, and not just a few internet articles. A bigger problem is it seems this article has no clear assertion of notability: she's done stuff, but has she done anything notable? WP:HOLE. I'd be interested in seeing if the de.wikipedia article on her is any better. It may be that we can source a good article on her, but at least one editor has been trying up to now, and if this is the best we can do, I'd suggest we delete, without any prejudice against re-creating the article in the future. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:01, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Can an admin with decent German reading skills, please, do us all a favor and review the German sources, to determine if this woman is notable? This discussion has been around for two weeks, and is beginning to stink. Bearian (talk) 19:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"List of multiple swimming medalist in international competitions"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Possibly WP:OR, however it is not fair to make such comparisons between athletes who are ineligible to compete at ALL of the championships discussed i.e. Australians and Americans cannot compete the the European Championships; Europeans cannot compete at the Pan Pacific Championships; etc. For a truly fair comparision, the championships should be: Olympics, World Champs, World SC Champs, European Champs (not SC), Pan-American Champs, African Champs, Oceanian Champs, Asian Champs. Furthermore, for the regional championships, they would need to be held with the same regularity, with the same history (i.e. European champs stated in the 1920s, but some regional champs started much much later) and the same number of events (i.e. not all champs include 50 metre events in all strokes, 800 m for men, 1500 m for women etc.) Yboy83 (talk) 09:22, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I could understand compiling the lists of multiple medalists for each particular competition, but adding the medals won at all of these competitions verges on original research. I don't know what sources, if any, claim that adding the medals won at all of these competitions is a valid or useful way to compare swimmers. --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable demo by band that is not so significant that every recording is automatically notable. Deleted three times by prod & speedy, so AfD would seem the prudent way to go forward. Bongomatic 09:16, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete Unsourced demo. Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I could fine nothing resembling an independent, reliable source that covers this topic. (e.g. [13]) YilloslimeTC 06:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"FillAnyPDF"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"FillAnyPDF"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"FillAnyPDF"}} 0]
Editor Count: 4 Creator: Elgatoduro Nominator: Anthony Appleyard
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. PDFFiller should be renominated separately if one wishes to delete it. NW(Talk) 22:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion, the last point speaks for itself, FillAnyPDF also have articles showing that it passes WP:N too. As shown in the references section. I must admin that I didnt have time to fully complete the article, I just imagined it will be a good thing to add a new more software to the list of PDF soft, and as most of the others, a page for it. If the article should be more technical or something, I would really like to know. Elgatoduro (talk) 09:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC) — Elgatoduro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Relisted for final time, hopefully more discussion will bring a better consensus. JForget 22:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete both Only sources in articles are blogs, unable to find any reliable source hits when googling. --Cybercobra(talk) 00:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Miss Thailand Universe special awards"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Miss Thailand Universe special awards"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Miss Thailand Universe special awards"}} 0]
Editor Count: 13 Creator: AnnLivinova Nominator: Cameron Scott
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
non-notable list of awards awards *besides* the main awards as a beauty pageant. No wider impact outside the competition, no third party references to indicate cultural or critical significance. Cameron Scott (talk) 07:34, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Too minor to include. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Closing without prejudice against rapid renomination. Skomorokh 21:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
An upcoming television show: no reliable sources cited. Even the "official site" claimed was not really an official site but a registration site indeed. Also, fails WP:NFF especially that it was not released in television whatsoever. JL 09q?c 07:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Actually...this TV series will take off soon. I saw parts of the launch on GMA7, and as of now, what was announced was the opening of auditions. However, I must acknowledge that there are very few sources for this article at this point (that's Philippine entertainment for you). So I'd give it a few more months before the more substantial coverage appears online and off-line. --- Tito Pao (talk) 10:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Tay Dizm"}} 81], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Tay Dizm"}} 7], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Tay Dizm"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. seresin ( ¡? ) 06:04, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable, "best known for guest appearances in some songs." --Julesn84 (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Delete. Has only appeared on one mainstream record, 2 Pistols - "She Got It". The rest listed have not achieved mainstream notability. I would expect to see this article recreated again in the future, however, as he is expected to release an album either later this year or in the first quarter of 2009. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 17:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"LeChuck"}} 227], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"LeChuck"}} 24], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"LeChuck"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, without prejudice against merging should local consensus so decide. Arguments to delete here were weak – variants on WP:RUBBISH, WP:NOEFFORT, WP:PROBLEMS and WP:JNN, but those advocating keep did so primarily on the basis of an important rather than verifiable conception of notability. Ultimately, the strength of the identified sources will determine whether or not a thoroughly verified, reliably sourced description of the topic is sustainable as a stand-alone article. Skomorokh 21:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. Article has been tagged for clean-up for almost two years, with negligible improvement. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep with no prejudice against a Merge. Too much reiteration of game events and some amount of OR (the Powers section); remove this and you're left with a relatively short article with established notability. It may be expandable based on what other sources there are but probably is better served in a list of MI characters. --MASEM (t) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Main antagonist in one of the most notable computer game series of all time. A merge might be an option, but not deletion. Fences&Windows 14:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep A notable character in multiple notable works of fiction. And by Keep, I mean actually keep it, not claim it was merged and replace it with a redirect with little if any content copied over somewhere else, or mass delete most of the article then claim there isn't enough left for its own article and then merge it. DreamFocus 14:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Anyone who stumbles into this one will stumble into the others, esp. since they also were inevitably linked in various lists of AfDs by theme, color, and hairstyle sorting. Relax. --EEMIV (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
In fairness to EEMIV, he'd simply redirected those other characters, and I didn't undo the redirects until after he'd nominated the two he didn't redirect, someone else added them to DELSORT fictional elements, and I got around to investigating their notability. Jclemens (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge When cut down, little actual stand-alone article exists. Merging it would be fine at this junction.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge/Redirect; the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out there's nothing left. Nifboy (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete or partial merge - this is excessive plot information (WP:WAF), which in any event belongs in the Plot sections of the relevant games. The small amount of out-of-universe context and verifiable information is shoved into the final "Notes" and "Legacy" section which can surely be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge and redirect per the above. Nothing here that is not better served at the main article. Spinouts are for content that is genuinely outside the accommodation of the main article. The idea that this applies here is laughable. Eusebeus (talk) 21:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup per Masem. At least get it into a verifiable, accurate article without OR and see what there is after cleanup. MuZemike 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Basic Vocab"}} 20], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Basic Vocab"}} 90], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Basic Vocab"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Completely non-notable group. On a non-notable label. Their one and only album never charted anywhere.[14] Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Fails WP:NALBUMS. Minor stab at notability by having one of their songs appear during the closing credits of a TV show. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. --Cybercobra(talk) 00:30, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Thug Ride"}} 3], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Thug Ride"}} 4], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Thug Ride"}} 0]
Thug Ride was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was keep
Keep! Delete Thug Ride? This album is XXX XXXX dawg. What kind of XXXX XXX XXXX do you listen to, Mr. Anonymous? XXXXXXX' UP!!!!!!!!!!!! BrowardPlaya 08:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete or merge with the band's page, if notable. AtonX 08:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep; It's a real album, I don't see any other VFDs for albums. This one seems highly notable too. Kappa 09:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, looks fine to me, even got an album cover in there. Everyking 10:50, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep: Needs some work. This seems a little POV to me: Thug Ride is widely considered one of the best hip-hop albums of all time. Today he is considered a hip-hop legend and is revolutionizing the music industry with his innovative internet distribution of songs.DCEdwards1966 15:43, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
If he's a hip-hop legend, then why haven't I heard of him?? And revolutionizing the music industry by distributing songs on the net is nothing new. I'd say nix those, or at least replace them with weaker versions of themselves - rernst 00:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep and tone down the POVvyness. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 16:52, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Keep, clean up. —tregoweth 23:32, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)
abstain for now. Will change later - rernst 00:52, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For the love of God, delete. -- Chaz
Might as well keep, but I will tone it down about a hundred notches. Tuf-Kat 18:58, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Keep [[User:Squash|Squash(Talk)]] 01:05, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Guybrush Threepwood"}} 360], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Guybrush Threepwood"}} 56], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Guybrush Threepwood"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
No assertion of notability. Insignificant references to reliable sources. Is essentially a regurgitation of plot summary covered in games' individual articles. --EEMIV (talk) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
KeepGoogle News has all sorts of hits from this month about him. WP:BEFORE has obviously not been followed in this case. Character appears to be a recurring fictional element that spans a notable series of computer games, thus lacking any good merge target. Jclemens (talk) 00:06, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and Google News Archive has over 350 hits for the name, going back to 1990. Google Scholar lists 35, and Google Books list 62. Potential overlap aside, assertions of non-notability are simply not credible. Jclemens (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep this character is about as noteable as they come, within the context of adventure games. may as well nominate Mario for having no notability in the field of platform games. RayBarker (talk) 01:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, as shown by the above editors, this article has clear notability. The article should be tagged with {{refimprove}} and {{expand}} and such, rather than being brought to AfD. Either way, it has been flagged for rescue now, and brought to the attention of WP:VG, and thus I expect someone with knowledge on the subject to improve the article using the sources lying about. AfD should not be used to delete articles that simply need work. --Taelus (talk) 07:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep but with no prejudice against a Merge to some list of Monkey Island characters. 90% of this article is duplicating the plot of the games. Take that out (hit the major points), and you're level with several NFC images (inappropriate) and about two paragraphs of notable information. This is not to say that I would think there should be more to establish Guybrush as a notable character from more sources. But if there's not much more, then this should be merged with other characters. --MASEM (t) 12:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Obviously notable, the main character in one of the most successful computer game series ever, which defined the genre of graphical adventures for a decade. Did the nominator make any effort to find sources? Did the nominator think about proposing a merge instead? A bloody big WP:TROUT in their general direction. Fences&Windows 14:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Agree with all the above points. There's no discussion of deleting articles such as Master Chief (Halo), so I fail to see why such an issue would arise with this article. - Goldenboy (talk) 17:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge into a relevant article (such as Monkey Island (series)#Characters) and delete plot information (which just duplicates game plots). The article contains little useful info. LaukkuTheGreit (Talk•Contribs) 15:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge Masem put my thoughts on the matter perfectly.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 21:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge: Like LeChuck, the article is unacceptably bad, being about two-thirds redundant plot summary and one-third original speculation/observation about the character. Once you've taken those two out all that's left is the story about Guy.Brush, a paragraph that can safely go into the series article. Nifboy (talk) 07:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom's rationale and Nifboy; +non-notable, unsourced fan-service material. Wikipedia is not a fansite. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 10:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Partial merge - as with LeChuck, this is almost entirely plot information: if the parent articles are written correctly, they will already include a plot synopsis. Other small tidbits of information, once verified, can be included in the series overview. Marasmusine (talk) 14:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - He is the main character in a popular or cult video game series, and I don't see the article on Strong Bad up for deletion. If anything, Monkey Island has more fans than Homestar Runner, but delete Guybrush without considering Strong Bad? Never! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.209.148.49 (talk) 08:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes. Other stuff exists. We know. That article has nothing to do with this one. MuZemike 02:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Which isn't to say the article is perfect or anything, but this character is one of the most famous in videogames, probably the MOST famous of the adventure genre. Plus he's been a popular character for over 15 years and has appeared in 6 different games to date. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 12:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Notable protagonist from popular videogame series, worthy of own article as per Goldenboy's comments. Metty (talk) 19:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep; There's many a notable source out there: takes three seconds to search for it. A rule of thumb for the nominator: if you don't see the notability there, look for it. If you can't find it anywhere, then propose it. --Monere (talk) 21:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Krondor Krew"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Krondor Krew"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Krondor Krew"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable band that has never charted a single song and isn't signed to a notable label. Zero gnews hits. A review of the first 100 ghits couldn't find a single reliable source. Mostly facebook/myspace and youtube stuff or unreliable music sites. Fails WP:BANDNiteshift36 (talk) 04:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. --Cybercobra(talk) 00:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Jungle of the Midwest Sea"}} 6], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Jungle of the Midwest Sea"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Jungle of the Midwest Sea"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 03:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: This band has had two other album pages deleted recently, so I doubt this one is headed any other way. Perhaps all this album information that is being lost can be put on the band's main page, as part of the discography section. --Milowent (talk) 03:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Barry Kirkey"}} 7], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Barry Kirkey"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Barry Kirkey"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Comment AFD notice has been restored to the article (remove by the original creator a few days ago)
Delete Lacks notability, lacks references. Zero Google News hits. Article really doesn't claim any notability other than a mention in a book which doesn't really establish him as notable.--Rtphokie (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"David Trosch"}} 160], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"David Trosch"}} 75], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"David Trosch"}} 0]
Editor Count: 24 Creator: Merkurix Nominator: Fences and windows
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Tone 17:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This was prodded as "self-explanatory". I deprodded so we could discuss it at AfD instead.
Trosch was notorious in the early-mid nineties for advocating the murder of abortion providers as 'justifiable homicide'. This came to light when he tried to post an advert in a newspaper with a cartoon that proposed this viewpoint. He also called for the killing of a specific abortion provider on the TV show Geraldo.
Despite all the tags and notices and apparently complaints from the subject and his advocates, I'd say from my reading of the sources - which I was too lazy to paste in but you can easily find on Google News - that this bio is pretty accurate, but I wonder whether it falls foul of WP:BLP1E? Fences&Windows 02:12, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete The gent in question undoubtedly made uncouth statements regarding the death of abortionists but those were many years ago and their impact is questionable. The article is just about unsourced, much of it is patched together from what is purportedly Trosch's website (which does not appear to have been updated since '03). An editor claiming to be Trosch has edited this page, by this point the warnings at the top of the page are longer than the article itself. Maybe this guy is notable enough to deserve an article but at present, there certainly are not citations to establish this and the article is hopelessly flawed. Blow it up and start over. Non-Dairy Creamer (talk) 16:35, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep and cleanup - a quick search ([15]) reveals that the basic gist of the article is accurate, although I can't attest to every single detail. The new coverage of his controversial opinions is fairly constant from 1993 to 2000, and he has been quoted or otherwise mentioned in about a dozen articles since that time. The most recent being a LA Times story revisiting the controversy just 2 months ago. As such, I don't really see how this would fall under 1E. All the article really needs is some precise sourcing & watchful eyes. As such, I've added it to my watchlist and will try to fix the sourcing within the next couple days.--ThaddeusB (talk) 21:13, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per well-researched argument of ThaddeusB. Significant mainstream media coverage satisfies the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep That search by ThaddeusB can be refined to just fully free sources, which gives ample evidence of notability, including Time magazine in 1994 describing him as the most vocal proponent of the view that since abortion is murder, stopping abortionists by whatever means necessary, up to and including killing them, is morally obligatory on bystanders.[16] The New York Times had reason to reference his views on religiously motivated violence in 1998[17] and Time Magazine in 1995[18]. The article is indeed a stub, as it would be easy for an editor to expand it. I also don't think it meets the BLP1E standard, as some of these citations are to events years later. And arguably, Bruce Lucero, M.D., New Woman all Woman Health Care, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. David Trosch, Father, Defendant, Minzor Chadwick, David Lackey, Kathleen Mcconnell, John Edwin Williams, Eleanor Stisher, Defendants-Appellants-Cross-Appellees, Chris Harding, Deputy United States Marshal, Movant., 121 F.3d 591 (11th Cir. 1997) (aka Lucero vs. Trosh) may be a notable law case, as there is at least some coverage of it in secondary sources and it has been cited as precedent in other cases of the same circuit.[19][20][21] (The law wikiproject is currently drawing the line on case notability, and I'm not sure which side of the line this case would end up on.) GRBerry 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I was never in any doubt as to the abundance of sources; it's not hard to tap his name into Google News! My reasoning for worrying about BLP1E was that his entire notability seemed based on the fall-out from that original advert placement, rather than the article being about him as a person. If editors believe that coverage of his Geraldo interview and the Lucero court case side-step BLP1E, then it might be OK to keep. Fences&Windows 07:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If BLP1E is the only concern, then a deletion nomination is not appropriate. Because the proper solution for a BLP1E issue is to either A) merge the content into an existing article on the event or B) move the article to a title about the event and then rework it to be about the event. In neither case should the article that had a BLP1E issue be deleted. If you need input on whether this should be done, the BLP noticeboard is the right place to get that input, not AFD. GRBerry 14:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Meh, whatever. Plenty of articles get deleted due to BLP1E concerns. The article was heavily disputed, covered in tags, and I converted a Prod into AfD as I wanted a proper discussion on deletion. No need to Wikilawyer. Fences&Windows 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Munetoshi Date"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Munetoshi Date"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Munetoshi Date"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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:SNOWJForget 22:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Suspected hoax. Declined speedy. An alleged actor/singer, who is not mentioned at all on the website of the agency to which he is supposedly signed [22]. The guy claims to be half-Chinese and half-Japanese, which leaves us with a bunch of names to search for:
His supposed singles are unknown to Oricon, as is he himself. Delete as hoax. —Quasirandom (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Hoax. Oda Mari (talk) 04:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Some 20-year-old who "has appeared in varies of commericals and music videos since 2004" sounds barely noteworthy even if he's with "KEN-ON ENTERNATINMENT" and actually exists. As stated above, Ken-On's site doesn't seem to mention him, though it has stuff about other pretty people and keeps going "ping" when you move your rat around the screen. ¶ It seems a pity that intelligent adults (as well as thick ones like me) have to waste any of their time in AfDs on this kind of thing; if I were the autocrat of Wikipedia I'd decree that any article about anyone alive and under 25 or maybe 30 were speediable unless it already came with at least one link to a disinterested, reliable source that credibly asserted noteworthiness. -- Hoary (talk) 08:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: He doesn't not seem to have done anything notable, and searching around didn't give me reason to change my mind. I disagree with Hoary's rant though. --Apoc2400 (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Stacey Marie Kerr"}} 2], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Stacey Marie Kerr"}} 2], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Stacey Marie Kerr"}} 0]
Editor Count: 7 Creator: Klevass Nominator: I dream of horses
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Article doesn't state notability. I dream of horses (T) @ 20:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. It doesn't matter if the article states notability, mind you; what matters is whether it demonstrates notability through significant coverage in reliable sources. This does not, and despite some searching, I have not been able to locate reliable sources myself.
Therefore this article fails Wikipedian content policies as well as the notability guideline and I do not think it can be saved.—S MarshallTalk/Cont 09:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete One book, in about 200 WorldCat libraries. The claimed JAMA article is a brief editorial item not included in PubMed. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Independent sources have not been provided to establish notability. --Metropolitan90(talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Adrianne Ahearn"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Adrianne Ahearn"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Adrianne Ahearn"}} 0]
Editor Count: 8 Creator: Klevass Nominator: I dream of horses
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Author of two books, held in only a few dozen libraries a/c WorldCat . DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Sport in Estonia"}} 9], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Sport in Estonia"}} 32], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Sport in Estonia"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cleanup, not deletion is the remedy here. Speedy closing. Tone 21:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Listcruft/Trivia. A long list of sports acheivements, many of them non-notable on their own. One of several weak "Sport in x" articles. Hairhorn (talk) 21:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Keep If it's weak, fix it. (or ask someone to who might know about the subject) AfD is not cleanup. I think it's a fair start at an article. It's not a list, so it isn't listcruft. And I am puzzled how an article that primarily discusses multiple Olympic medals and world championships, where almost all of the people mentioned are Olympic or world champions in their sports, can possibly be considered trivia, or discussing topics non-notable on their own. I do not understand this nomination. DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"ReWire DJ's"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"ReWire DJ's"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"ReWire DJ's"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
(I speak the language which the article is written in) Currently non-notable DJ duo established 6 months ago. All claim of notability comes from them expecting to release four singles and expecting to perform at various festivals. Even taking that into account, their notability seems marginal at best. Peasantwarrior (talk) 11:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Here is the Google translation: [23]. ...discospinstertalk 02:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Danny Sillada"}} 5], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Danny Sillada"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Danny Sillada"}} 0]
Editor Count: 18 Creator: Prince Jamila Nominator: JL 09
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Does not meet notability guidelines for inclusion. Reference [24] has no related pages mentioning the subject. Also [25] do not exist. There are no news sources relating/or saying his notability. The image used is possible copyright violation from one of the external links. Finally, external links that are supposed to detail on how he should be notabvle fails to describe this, some are of weblog. In particular, not all painter/philosopher, performanec artist or critic is notable. JL 09Talk to me!msg 4 u! 05:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
The artist, according to the present version of the article [26], has been the subject of a student newspaper article and a University research paper. In itself, this does not constitute notability. Things that would help include: evidence of significant press coverage, major prizes or awards, work held in significant collections.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 12:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Delete no significant accomplishments, no credible sources. Student newspapers are not really credible for establishing notability unless what they report is especially significant. DGG ( talk ) 16:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment : According to WP:Artist, he must least developed new concept in the field where he excelled, in this case, he is a surrealist painter and he doesn't developed that idea. Yes, he have "Menstrual Period in Political History", supposed to be an important media in history especially during Hello Garci scandal, but what about other painters that did the same and has the same ideas with him? The inline citations rarely distinguish him, or at least, the links never mentioned him, I do not know why this happened. Most links came from Multiply or privately-owned blog sites. ( According to this rule, it is unwise to use blogs as external links or as citation. To paraphrase, blogs are solely interpretation of the concern and are subjected to bias; i.e., I can say on my blog that "Sillada is the greatest born Filipino painter, greater than Amorsolo and others". That is extreme bias, especially that majority of blogs (esp. Multiply) tend to give opinions rather than the truth. ) To continue, it was also said that the artist's work(s) must "...(a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention,..." In this case, the "Menstrual Period" was the only mentioned work that gained critical analysis: and it was referenced to a website where it is very very difficult to confirm whether it was really said on that site. Furthermore, the article fails WP:MUSICBIO. Finally, Google search of his names will give us blog sites, Amazon/Twitter/Facebook and other links to social networking sites and there are no reliable news sources to confirm that Gloria Arroyo conferred him such an award. Sure that it is cited, but do we have any ways to confirm that? If that was published in a coffee table, sure that there is, at least, a news article from an online local newspaper saying that.--JL 09q?c 12:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Those subject-specific criteria do not have to be fulfilled if WP:N is. Print sources are perfectly acceptable is they meet WP:RS. The way to confirm it is to buy the book or find it in a library. There is no requirement for sources to be online. Ty 03:12, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Article has improved since the nom with more references. The link [27] mentioned as not existing is on the Internet Archive and now linked.[28]Ty 03:02, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep My comment above, quoted by the nominee, was added to the talkpage to explain why I had re-added a notability tag [29]. Since then, even before the AfD nom, the article had been improved. Still doesn't meet the WP:CREATIVE criteria I was alluding to, and the subject isn't in any way a major artist. But multiple refs make it OKish.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 21:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep: Article has been improved. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per above, still needs credible work though...Modernist (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Well, he did won an award, but I'm not sure of its significance; I have the impression that it's a local award created to commemorate a centennial. The fact that the President of the Philippines doesn't automaticall(y) make the award notable; would have also said the same about the artist in this article. I'd agree with Ethicoaestheticist, I was looking for something more substantive.
One more thing: improving the article doesn't make it more keep-worthy. For all I care, even a hoax article can be improved to bring it up to the level of a featured article, but that doesn't make it more worthy of a keep. In considering whether an article should be kept or deleted, one should evaluate the merits of an article based on its notability, and the sources with its verifiability and reliability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
My comment about the improvement was meant to mean that it had improved sufficiently to be kept, but that there was justification for the nom, because at that time it was not in a state to be kept. Ty 01:49, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment about the improvement: Even though the article was improved, the concerned person is still not notable. The fact is that he only have one painting mentioned that became "controversial", and citations rarely mentioned his name. He was also a recipient of only one award, but the award's notability is still in question. Apart from that, the article does not give any assertion why he should be notable. One of the links is still a work done by Sillada, which according to this is not good. Okay, so the article has citations that point into some website: but they are pointed into the homepage of a certain website that is difficult to find where on the earth he mentioned [30]. As such, winning an award does not mean a very fast elevation to notability. I agree with Titopao, if I'm not mistaken, certified hoax, when written very well can be an FA -- a good-written article does not mean a good content, it must also be subjected to WP rules since this is Wikipedia.--JL 09q?c 12:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
An artist's works do not have to be controversial. The ref you mention to the homepage gives the issue date and page number for the print source: it does not seem to be online. If you check the refs, you will find articles specifically about Sillada in different sources. There is no indication this is a hoax. Ty 01:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
We are not saying this is a hoax, but I am citing a hoax article as an example.--JL 09q?c 14:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep per Ty and others. There will inevitably be much less coverage in Anglophone media of Filipino artists, which sways me. Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Zoids Rebirth"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Zoids Rebirth"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Zoids Rebirth"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
This toy line does not assert notability, and the bulk of the content is just a trivial list of the toys. The reception reference is just a forum post, so it is not reliable. TTN (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:10, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Limited merge or redirect. Nothing here indicates separate notability. Hard to say whether there is anything here worth merging. I guess a little of it could be if it can be referenced properly. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep as notable enough. Bearian 19:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I am concerned that this article does not pass WP:N, but there have been several TV appearances and suchlike, so I didn't feel that I could just tag it for speedy deletion per WP:CSD#A7. I'd like the community's comments on this one. Voxpuppet (talk • contribs) 12:23, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral - leaning towards keep; Looks like they are pretty close to passing WP:N with a appearance on KPIX and a story about them in the Oakland Tribune - but I don't know if that on its own is enough to pass. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 15:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, W.marsh 15:59, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: For now. Seems notable, and I've tagged for additional references. - Rjd0060 17:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Keep: Needs references, but I'm sure this can be taken care of. - Che Nuevara 20:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
Neutral Not that convinced that its notable, and its relativly new (2000). Mbisanz 18:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"House of Chasse"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"House of Chasse"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"House of Chasse"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Article fails notability. It might belong as a subtopic of Jesus bloodline. Google doesn't show anything related to this topic, unless you like seafood. Original article was about a possible Jesus bloodline. but that article doesn't mention anything either. Seems more original research than anything else. TParis00ap (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Current contents are a copyvio from [31], original content is pseudoscientific "research" without any shred of notability or verifiablility. Fram (talk) 10:01, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete As above.Simonm223 (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"World Tutor"}} 21], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"World Tutor"}} 114], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"World Tutor"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Delete: I removed a lot of the promotional material. I couldnt find much on google, but if World Tour Exchange is the same thing as this article subject, the site's homepage does turn up high on search results. Nothing on Google scholar or news. I dont see any awards claimed or anything else claiming notability. The article may meet WP:School but only because it educates grades 9+. Although I would still say it doesnt meet WP:GNG or even make an attempt. I dont think internet schools really count under WP:School because anyone can pay for a website and call it a school. Maybe if it was an accredited school?--TParis00ap (talk) 03:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: This doesn't meet WP:N, and a search reveals very little in the way of sources that would support notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 14:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Notability has not been established despite requests. Bio information is not referenced and may be autobiographical. EndoSTEEL (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete All sources are self-published. Nothing to indicate notability. No ghits. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 19:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"World War II.5"}} 509], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"World War II.5"}} 777], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"World War II.5"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This article falls under the category of "things I made up one day that sound legit". It is particularly tragic because, as far as things go that are made up one day that sound legit, I'd have totally believed this article were it not for the cheesy title (which shows no relevant hits on Google) and the inaccurate lists (Indiana Jones didn't take place during World War II but rather throughout the 1930s, and The Sum of All Fears is a quintessentially Cold War book). Good effort though. Alas, the jig is up and it's time to send this article to a digital graveyard. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and could have been speedy deleted. I suppose there's a sort of air of possible legitimacy about it which refrains people from the speedy delete.Cream147Shout at me for doing wrong 22:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't Care: I wasted enough time on this. Let some else save it because later on someone else in the future will rewrite the same article if you delete it.Septagram (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The first source is a course catalog from the University of North Dakota, and makes no mention of "WWII+" or any variant thereof. The second link is a forum with 1 mention of "WW2+". This is not enough to show that this term is anything more than WP:MADEUP. I see no indication of widespread use in the industry. Jujutaculartalkcontribs 04:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
WW2 Redux and world war II redux has a better search result on Google. Would ww2 redux be a better title than ww2.5?Septagram (talk) 04:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Alternate history is tempting but it covers all periods of history (including WW2) while there is a whole genre of WW2 alternative history that is more prolific than steampunk and is not covered in much detail by any single article. If a section dedicated to WW2 was added (would be large), it might work in Alternate history. Septagram (talk) 05:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Alternate WW2 histories are discussed at Alternate History. I'm not convinced this needs its own entry. Hairhorn (talk) 11:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, with all possible speed.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 03:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Zoids 2"}} 2], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Zoids 2"}} 24], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Zoids 2"}} 0]
Editor Count: 16 Creator: I Am The Namer Nominator: TTN
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Zoids. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 19:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect/merge to Zoids. Ikip (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect and/or delete. No notability shown. RobJ1981 (talk) 02:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Ghost Zoids"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Ghost Zoids"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Ghost Zoids"}} 0]
Editor Count: 19 Creator: I Am The Namer Nominator: TTN
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 "Keep" by Judo112 was given significantly less weight per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSNOTABLENW(Talk) 19:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
This toy line does not assert any sort of notability and it simply contains trivial details, such as a list of the toys. TTN (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Trivial listcruft. Notable content (if there is any) should be merged into an existing notable Zoids article. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep per well written article. Established notability of Ghost zoids. etc etc..--Judo112 (talk) 12:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable line. Content is just speculation and a product listing. Doctorfluffy (wanna get fluffed?) 03:33, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
There are thousands of products who has wikipedia article about them. why should this be any different. the delete sayers seems to be stuck to some paragraph in soem lawbook somewhere:)--Judo112 (talk) 14:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Daniel Kolev"}} 4], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Daniel Kolev"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Daniel Kolev"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Non notable - 8 year old footballer. Fails notability guidelines at WP:Athletenoq (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I contested speedy deletion because there was a claim of importance, and the birth date could have been a typo, but the claim to play for Slavia Sofia isn't backed up by the the team's web site, and on further reflection I suspect that "Slavia Sofia 2001" is the Bulgarian equivalent of what would be called in England "Slavia Sofia under-9s". There is a Kolev playing for Slavia, but his first name is Todor. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 10:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above. Geschichte (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. I have tagged this for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G7 as the author and sole contributor has blanked the page. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"B.C. Williamson"}} 14], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"B.C. Williamson"}} 366], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"B.C. Williamson"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedy delete g3, obvious hoax. NawlinWiki (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Violation of WP:NFT - A "fictional" musician that "two teenagers" created in 2009. Nick—Contact/Contribs 01:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete as nominator. It borders on being a hoax, although I suppose not really, as the article doesn't try to claim the person really exists. Either way, I think a WP:SNOW speedy deletion is in order. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 01:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I have serious doubts that this article can pass WP:CORP. It is entirely self-referential to the company website and has a tone that sounds suspiciously like corporate PR or someone else with a WP:COI has written the bulk of it. If notability cannot be established, the article should be deleted. --Dynaflowbabble 18:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - no effort to assert notability, zero referencing, written entirely like an advertisement. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"FFF (gang)"}} 2], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"FFF (gang)"}} 4], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"FFF (gang)"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable groups that fails WP:ORG and doesn't bother to assert notability.. Would have nominated it for speedy delete except that they got talked about in a single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago and I'm sure some admin would call that an assertion of notability. Lack of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Rolling Stone magazine published a very extensive multi-paged exposé on this gang and its members (a heavily abridged, yet still multi-paged reprint of it can be found here), thus easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. That's why I created an article about it. Additionally, the Los Angeles Times has published significant coverage on this topic [34][35] (despite the nom's claim that it lacks "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources", that 1st LA Times article was found in the link provided by the nom above in this AfD!). Being a unique Caucasian Los Angeles gang that has received significant coverage from very reliable sources is an assertion of notability. A reliable source can be published 23 years ago, 2 years ago or 230 years ago and still be a valid source per WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Did I say notability expires? No. So stop pretending that I did. I said lack of significant coverage from multiple sources. I found the LA times abstracts. The second one was more about individuals than the gang, so I dn't count it as significant coverage of them. Nor did I say the Rolling Stone one couldn't be used....just that it was the only one cited in the article. Even that article spends a lot of time talking abotu the people, their motivations etc..... but not that much about the gang itself, so I'm not so sure that the article really helps the gangs notability as much as it would look if you don't bother to read it. It appears to me that they were more novelty than notable. That's why I brought it here. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
By stating "single article in Rolling Stone 23 years ago" gives the impression that "23 years ago" is some kind of handicap to the source. It isn't. In regards to the odd "Even that article spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc." statement, if the source didn't go in-depth about those aspects of the gang, than the coverage would be much less significant and in-depth. The Rolling Stone article actually goes into much more detail about the origins, history and activities of the gang in addition to "the people, their motivations etc." --Oakshade (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
And still, when I repeat that I didn't say notability expires, you feel the need to tell me that is doesn't expire again. How much more clear can I make it to you. I didn't see that much notability in the Rolling Stone article. You could substitute pretty much most generic gangs and much of it would fit. And even if I thought that article was significant coverage, that is only one. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:03, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion that a multi-paged in-depth article from a national and very prestigious publication about this topic, which you even admit "spends a lot of time talking [about] the people, their motivations etc.", is not significant coverage is noted, but WP:NOTABILITY doesn't agree. As it being "only one", (actually, it's two multi-paged in-depth articles about this topic), WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one. It states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." --Oakshade (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
And WP:ORG says sources, plural. I believe they were treated as a novelty. Had there not been a music tie in with members being part of a non-notable punk band (their article was deleted as non-notable in 2006), I highly doubt Rolling Stone would have bothered at all. It's not like the gang actually did much that was notable, especially compared to other gangs in that area. After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that. Oh well, let's see how the AfD goes. I don't particularly care either way, but you are clearly taking this very personal.Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Firstly, WP:ORG doesn't trump WP:NOTABILITY. It's the opposite. Secondly, there are two multi-paged sources about this topic (you keep ignoring this) which currently makes it plural anyway. Your opinion/blind speculation of why Rolling Stone choose to do a major exposé on this topic has absolutely nothing to do with Wikipedia's guidelines. --Oakshade (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG, says "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sourceS...". That letter s at the end source sources means plural, as in more than one. So I'm not sure where you get this idea that "WP:NOTABILITY doesn't require more than one". It goes on to say that if it meets this "by consensus" it is "usually worthy" for inclusion. So do me a couple of favors: Stop misrepresenting GNG and stop acting like it is a drop-dead issue that isn't allowed to be discussed. And while you keep repeating "multi-page" ad nasuem, you gloss over the fact that while technically correct, it is because the article is in a column format and the space is just foudn where ever. This is obvious from the link you provided. My "opinion/blind speculation" is allowed here. That is how consensus is arrived at...by editors giving opinions. I'm sorry that you are so annoyed at the fact that someone disagrees with you or that someone would have the audacity to nominate an article you wrote, but such is life. And other editors do feel that criteria like WP:ATHLETE, WP:POLITICIAN, WP:ORG should be looked at first because they deal more directly with the topics at hand. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:53, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Firstly, there are at least two in-depth very significant sourceS about this topic. Secondly, WP:NOTABILITY, specifically WP:GNG states "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." Both these points you have completely ignored. If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG to require more than one source, you need to make your case at WP:NOTABILITY's talk page and not attempt to change it in a specific AfD. But again, there are already sourceS so we don't know why you keep demanding more than one source when there is already more than one significant source provided. In regards to the "After 20+ years, you can't find anything beyond about a one year time frame and damn few at that" statement (odd that you kept repeating that you didn't say notability expires, not to mention admitted there are sources), a topic could have received significant in-depth coverage in a one-year time frame 200 years ago and still pass WP:NOTABILITY.--Oakshade (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Are you intentionally trying to mislead? You're back to this claim that I'm saying notability expires? I'm saying if they were that notable, usually there'd be more coverage than a short time frame. It's not like this is somethig that just happened and there hasn't been time for the media to cover it. Two decades and they've pretty much ignored it except for the local paper and one magazine. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Besides Rolling Stone being a national publication and the Los Angeles Times being one of the most prestigious newspapers in the US, there has never been any kind of "banning" of local reliable sources as evidence of notability. (Actually, the Chicago Tribune, which isn't local to Los Angeles, also did a profile of this gang [36])--Oakshade (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's the first I saw of the Chicago Tribune one. Thanks for the link. Regardless of the size or prestige of the LA Times, it is still the local paper for them. Local papers carry local news. That's a given. We're just not going to see eye to eye. Let's agree to disagree and just let the AfD take its course. I personally won't lose a minute of sleep one way or another if it is kept or deleted. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:44, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
If you'd like to change WP:NOTABILITY to not accept local sources as evidence of notability, no matter how in-depth and significant the coverage of a given topic from those sources are, you are free to make your case at Wikipedia talk:Notability. --Oakshade (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Sigh....whatever man.......If you're so damn certain about it, then why are you wasting so much time defending it. This should be an easy keep when it closes if this is how you say. Or is it just personal for you now? Don't bother, that was rhetorical. I'm done talking with you. Enjoy playing the sound of one hand clapping. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
As you are the nom and throwing up misleading statements about WP:NOTABILITY and WP:GNG (like multiple sources are required) or arguments that have nothing to do with our guidelines, they need to be called on. I could ask you if you're so certain about this AfD, "then why are you wasting so much time defending it?" I'm sorry you're offended so much that you feel need to make a personal attack. --Oakshade (talk) 15:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep: See Oakshade - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep – In addition to what's already mentioned, there is also a New York Times article that discusses this gang in several paragraphs; I've added that reference. Paul Erik(talk)(contribs) 05:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. There isn't a huge amount, but the sources are significant: Rolling Stone, The New York Times, Associated Press/Chicago Tibune, and Los Angeles Times... and local coverage in Los Angeles, California is a bit different than local coverage in Mayberry, North Carolina. Besides, when the Weekly World News writes about them, they must be notable.[37] (BTW, FFF mentioned in another LATimes article about white youth gangs: [38].) Location (talk) 03:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"P Jay Crips"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"P Jay Crips"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"P Jay Crips"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to Crips. Ikip (talk) 02:55, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable gang. A localized set that fails WP:ORG. The larger gang passes notability, but this set does not. Article uses one reliable source that was less about why that set is notable than about just using a former member as an example. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Nuclear overload"}} 5], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Nuclear overload"}} 14], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Nuclear overload"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. per WP:SNOWJForget 22:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
This a new theory of the author's, i.e. original research. It was PRODded, but the author has objected to deletion on the talk page, so I bring it here. JohnCD (talk) 16:59, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete New editor, first contribution, I'll try not to be harsh. But as the nominator points out, a search for the term doesn't indicate that it's used in the sense that the editor suggests. The concept of all the world's nuclear weapons going off at the same time because of some Y2K-like computer glitch is probably mentioned in science fiction, but I wouldn't know where. You have to have sources to back up an article, and this one seems to be the editor's own idea. Mandsford (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Pure original research. Any article on the topic of arms control/limitation, nuclear weapons policy/proliferation etc. that does not cite Albert and Roberta Wohlstetter for at least one of its sources should, in my opinion, be viewed with suspicion. L0b0t (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Neologism and just plain dumb. Hairhorn (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - complete rubbish. Nuclear weapons do not explode because of a "computer overload", and the author's heavy use of weasel words like "theorists say" is a pretty clear signal that they're making this up. Zetawoof(ζ) 21:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Kelly Park Compton Crips"}} 6], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Kelly Park Compton Crips"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Kelly Park Compton Crips"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Keep per these two articles, and that one. The scholar one is rather flimsy, but the news sources are OK. A rewrite is needed though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 23:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Withdrawing nomination per the sources provided above. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Laughing (character)"}} 12], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Laughing (character)"}} 152], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Laughing (character)"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:45, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't assert notability independent of the main article. The only thing that could potentially assert notability is the character's death, but E.U. (TVB)#Reception already covers that. The other language versions of the article have a number of sources, but as far as I can tell from bad online translators, they all pretty much just say the same thing. Anything else can just be added to the reception section of the main article. TTN (talk) 16:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Agree with nom completely. Eusebeus (talk) 16:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable subject. Pemberton08 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. NW(Talk) 22:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The article doesn't meet the Wiki:Notability, as the rank is not anything but below a Joint Secretary of British Bureaucracy. There are hundreds of Additional Inspector Generals of Police in Pakistan. In any case it is not something which shouldn't be hinted. Recommended for Strong Deletion
--LineofWisdom (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The article subject has not been the subject of secondary published material, only trivial mentions. Fails WP:BIO. Kevin (talk) 05:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete. Purely looks like a vanity insertion either by himself or by his relatives. Also doesn't meet the Wiki notability Policies. There are several hundreds of police officers of this rank in Pakistan only, what to say of the rest of the world. Wikipedia can not have separate pages for each of them. He would have been worthy of inclusion had he been martyred in a suicide bomb while showing some gallantry.-- MARWAT 13:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Not Deleted.Kindly refer to Cabinet Secratariat Notification as of Sept. 2001 in which the rank of Addl.IGP has been placed eqv. to that of Major General of Army, Addl. Secretary to the Federal Govt.Establishment Division notification of June 6,1993 says Addl.IGP shall wear ranks as that of a Major General. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayofwisom (talk • contribs)
Sockblocked. King of♥♦♣ ♠ 06:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete So what if he is even a plus, Lieutenant General, then Major General? An article could be created, when he would reach the rank of Interior Minister or holder of any othe Public Representative Office (PRO). The same user has also created article about his cousin Dil Jan Khan, which clearly proofs this as a vanity insertion either by himself or by any of his relatives. --203.99.182.114 (talk) 19:41, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to Admin - The AFD discussion header was missing causing it to be easily overlooked in going through the AFD lists. The duration of the AFD likely should be extended. -- Whpq (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Can't see where he is notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 22:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
Should not be Deleted.If this article is deleted that all articles on Police Officers should be deleted. Or it will be bias. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.73.5.111 (talk) 11:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete There are Millions of Police Officers around the world. Atleast Hundred thousands would be in same rank of his or muc senior to him. It is strange that why the deletion process isn't taking place and the discussion is prolonged? --LineofWisdom (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Not to be Deleted. I agree if a senior Pakistani officer does not find place on this page, then all police officers around the world who have been placed on wikipedia, their articles must be deleted. Otherwise, it is racial discrimination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rayofwisom (talk • contribs) 11:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Stuck vote by blocked sockpuppet. NW(Talk) 05:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
To be Deleted> Wikipedia has Articles for several Pakistani police officers, who are notable and worthy to be given place here. When a position, which is somewhat low-rank and also not notable, even have no special contribution of gallantry or martyred, why should it be given a separate article? This totally seems a family member's insertion, as you could see the same user Rayofwisom is using different User Name as previously he remakred from same IP 119.73.5.111. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LineofWisdom (talk • contribs)
Keep Essentially, head of the police of one of the most difficult areas to police in the world, and formerly head of police of a major city, peshawar, population 2 million. That alone would have been sufficient. DGG ( talk ) 00:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
It is part of his duty to work out here, Thousand of officers like him are working there at NWFP. Th position is not distinguished from, any other of its class. It is a low rank position, which just deals with the local police, not with the National Police. In world there are numerous cities with 10 Million poppulation but there police head's rank is not something special. It is just an officer who is to perform duty, wther in a city, at one or another province. In any case it doesn't fulfill the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability. If it does, I would be happy, as then I would be able to create more than 1000 Articles for such-ranked officer only in Pakistan. --LineofWisdom (talk) 07:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Please do not strike out !votes from good-faith users. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 07:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to Closing Admin Please look into this fact that this user account Marwat786 was created today solely for voting on this article as well as another one by the name of Dil Jan Khan. It appears to be a sock of user LineofWisdom who nominated this article for Deletion. It might be a tactic to increase his voting tally. Kindly investigate. -- MARWAT 12:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to Closing Admin Note to Nyttend I not only respect your comments but of each individual here. I am surfing Wikipedia since 2008, atleast once in fortnight. I recently created this I.D when it felt that being a native and Marwat myself, I must not keep quite on the issues relating to my tribe and its elder. I don't know how Marwatt is so confidant that I am Sock of other user who is much criticised for none. Now, when he has challenged my indetity, it is his moral duty to prove that I am using sock. Actually, he cannot see someone voting against him. He neverwants someone else than him, espcially from Marwat tribe, to speak and have freedom of writing here. If I am uneligible to vote on the very first day - my aim for making this I.D is cleared above - then my vote be declared null and void. But I request you administrators to track the previous record (from 2006 to date) of this user Marwatt to know his state of mind on article Marwat. It wonders me that he never talks regarding the deletion or whatever the subject is, but always challenges the Users' authority to defend any of the Articles that he wants to be here, wether of a Notable or obscure personality. In the end, is it fair to talk about users at Article for Deletions, rather debating and addressing the issues? Is there no administrator to stop his such notorious writings? --Marwat786 (talk) 17:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment You know what user LineofWisdom , I am sick and tired of your unnecessary edits in articles related to Marwat’s. since I have a fair idea about your identity so I am going to tell you that I won’t let you delete the names of rival clans from the parent article of Marwat. Their separate entries/articles may be deleted as per Wikipedia Policies (just like this one on which even I myself voted a Strong Delete) but it was agreed by consensus earlier (record available on the discussion page of the parent article of Marwat) that nobody would start another edit war upon the insertion of notable names in Marwat. You on the other hand has once gain initiated that edit war and my experience with Wikipedia tells me that its not going to stop unless someone (an admin ) knocks a little rationality in the head of that particular person who starts that edit war. So be a rational person and do recognize those people from our soil Marwat and leave alone the article Marwat. All your constructive edits are welcome though. -- MARWAT 05:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Right forum I condemn the allegations you have charged upon me which has nothing to do with me but to provoke administrators, who, I am sure are quite intellect selections of Wikipedia. I just want to ask, is this the right forum to curse, accuse or blame anyone for anything? Here you should discuss the deletion or keeping of the article not to curse someone who have opposing opinion to yours. --LineofWisdom (talk) 06:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete He may be doing great work in a difficult job, but his rank is too low to be notable. Opening the doors for any police person of this rank (assuming no separate notability) is not a good idea.YobMod 11:04, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
*Keep I think it should be kept. I went through different articles on wikipedia about serving Police Officers. many police officers whose rank was junior to this have been given a place and thus it gives the notion that they fulfill the criterion of WP notable person. To my knowledge being a retired mid-level Police Officer, Additional IGP is the second senior most rank in police. The jurisdiction of the office currently occupied by the officer is whole of province of NWFP. (Begukhan (talk) 11:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC))— Begukhan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Keep being the top cop in Peshawar seems clearly notable. Wikipedia needs these types of articles as they do much to counter systemic bias to American topics and popkult stuff. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Note to Admin I read many articles about Police Officer in WP whose rank is eqv. to DIG of Pakistan's Police. still there articles are here. Addl. IGP is a second senior most rank in Pakistan's police. (Begukhan (talk) 05:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC))
USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST. (read this as, "See above") J.delanoygabsadds 17:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Note: There is severe sockpuppetry going on in this discussion. Therefore, I am relisting it again along with semi-protecting the page for 1 week. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 23:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per DGG and because it seems like the AfD was brought forth in bad faith by the nominator, judging from some of the comments in this AfD. Lithorien (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Both local and international coverage, as shown here [39]. I believe that meets our standards for inclusion here at Wikipedia. ShoesssSTalk 02:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Smells a lot like a Vanity Page. (Actually what it really resembles is a resume.) TruthGal (talk) 06:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Speedy Delete: Nothing out of the ordinary here as there is no gallantry nor some locally or nationally recognized leadership displayed by him. He is just performing a common routine bureaucratic cop job. 100% vanity page inserted either by himself or his kids. There are hundreds of Civil Servants like him in Pakistan alone, what to say of the rest of the world and Wikipedia can not afford to have pages for such bureaucrats. Yes he would have merited a place here if he had displayed even a little bit of personal heroism and leadership as was displayed by one of his junior cop Malik Saad who has become a local legend.-- MARWAT 07:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Conclude As the consensus on Deletion of article is chiefly there, I would like to request to administrator and operator to Delete the page as per policy. --LineofWisdom (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - An administrator has relisted this AFD for one week (see above) due to sockpuppetry muddling everything. So there is no clear concensus. There is no need to rush. an amdinistrator will evaluate the discussion at the end of teh reslisting period and take appropriate action. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep - Chief of Police for a large city is a significant position. There is evidence for local coverage in English, and I suspect more in non-English sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I think it should be kept . (Abbasmaj (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC))
Okay... why? TruthGal (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Notability has not been established for the subject. The sources are quotes he has said as police chief and none deal with him personally as the subject. Fails WP:BIO, as has been already stated. If someone could produce reliable sources dealing with the subject of the article then notability could be established and the article could be kept. Narthring (talk • contribs) 17:50, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
CommentWhpq another article Sarfaraz Khan Marwat had the same problem but it was conclude in due time, result of which was Deletion. Attention the Abbasmaj is the same one who have created this article. So he will for sure vote in favour. But the article fails to meet criteria of Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Bio. --LineofWisdom (talk) 19:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per User:DGG, User:Lithorien Internal differences between editors should not be the reason for nominating an AFD --Notedgrant (talk) 07:44, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
Matter? If there is even any internal difference, it shouldn't be the reason to keep un-notable article. Infact, what is the notability of a police office which is for every city of Pakistan and of many coutnries of teh world? --LineofWisdom (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2009 (UTC)at
Delete Abdul Majeed Marwat was my class-fellow, at University of Peshawar in late 70s. He is a thorough gentleman, I just spoke to him on telephone about helping me out in registering an F.I.R (First Information Report). But he is just a cop / police officer like uncountable over the globe. By the way he is also transfered from the position and would soon take charge as D.I.G (deputy Inspector General) at Hazara division. --WikipedianBug (talk) 19:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"GCC4TI"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"GCC4TI"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"GCC4TI"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete for lack of reliable sources to establish notability Bfigura(talk) 03:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete One single reference that doesn't establish notability Rirunmot (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Skill360 Australia"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Skill360 Australia"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Skill360 Australia"}} 0]
Editor Count: 3 Creator: BusinessLeader Nominator: Anthony Appleyard
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Australia has only about 19 million people in it. In America, we have 15 times as many people. If instead of helping 15,000 Australians, a nonprofit organization was helping 225,000 Americans, would it then be considered notable? DreamFocus 16:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No refs to establish that this training provider meets WP:ORG and the article doesn't make any strong claims of notability. 15,000 students over 25 years is pretty small for an Australian vocational education provider (most TAFE colleges would train at least that many students per year). Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No independent sources, no real claim to notability (training ~600 people a year doesn't seem notable to me). Duffbeerforme (talk) 11:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Safe Speed"}} 9860], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Safe Speed"}} 1222], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Safe Speed"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The pressure group Safe Speed does not reach the notability criteria for organizations and companies - coverage of the group by secondary sources is trivial and incidental, and depth of coverage is not substantial. It is not truly a group, but the work of a single woman and her late husband - it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Kouros (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep, as per [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and a particularly scathing critique here. Not to mention founder Paul Smith's (and his wife) many television and radio appearances over a period of many years, details of which may be found here. Coverage of this organisation is by no means trivial, or incidental, and I am unaware of any rules on notability that mention the size of a group. Parrot of Doom (talk) 16:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Add this to the list of sources which mentions Safespeed and its founder, Paul Smith. Parrot of Doom (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Paul Smith was (briefly) quoted in the UK news media, resulting in a fairly detailed review of their claims by consumer magazine Which?, unusual for a group like this; per WP:BLP it is right to cover this under the name of the group. It was always a one-man band, true, and the fifteen minutes of fame ended quite some time ago, but in the brief period before everybody realised that the sciencey talk was all smoke and mirrors (Smith repeatedly refused to submit his work for peer-review) they were just about the only source quoted against the mainstream view on speed enforcement and there are some in the Provisional ABD who actually believe the absurd one in three and 12mph claims, as well as crediting him for the long-established regression to the mean principle described in Death On The Streets a decade before Smith "invented" it. Yes, barking mad and grossly intellectually dishonest but still has obsessive followers even today. Anyone interested in my biases and involvement can see my website page on Smith. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. A frequent editor of this article, Parrot of Doom, has been posting into the SafeSpeed site. He pleads with other posters to "please don't edit this entry if you're not a regular Wikipedia contributor". He acknowledges that if they do, then "what I'm doing here may then be viewed as canvassing opinion". However, he does ask for "evidence to support the case for keeping this article". I'd politely suggest that Parrot of Doom has indeed "canvassed for opinion", and we should consider that activity when judging the validity of the article. Basingwerk (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC) - PS this is not to "teach PofD a lesson" or anything like that. PofD is doing a sterling job in protecting the site. But I want to make it public that the site has been approached in this way, which distorts things, in my humble opinion.
I was not canvassing for opinion. I was asking contributors to that forum for evidence that I could use in this discussion, and to date one forum member has responded to that request. Besides which, activity outside Wikipedia has no bearing on this discussion unless anyone from that forum turns up in this discussion. Parrot of Doom (talk) 10:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, PofD. The response concerns a book by Chris Booker, who has in the past has claimed that man-made global warming was "disproved" in 2008, that white asbestos is "chemically identical to talcum powder" and poses a "non-existent risk" to human health, that "scientific evidence to support the belief that inhaling other people's smoke causes cancer simply does not exist" and that there is "no proof that BSE causes CJD in humans". He has also defended the theory of Intelligent Design, maintaining that Darwinians "rest their case on nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions". So, that's all very helpful for cranks, but it's not the type of thing we are looking for on Wiki. In fact, it's just opinion (IMHO!), not based on science at all. On the other hand, perhaps it makes the site "notable", but not as a rational road safety organization. Can it be put under a category for "Anti-science belief systems", or some such thing? PS: Guy's comments on "obsessive followers" ring true in this regard. Again, is it a valid road safety group, or a grudge site? PPS: you didn't ask for "evidence that I could use in this discussion". You specifically asked for evidence that supports keeping it. That is the source of the bias.
My posting the link to the book was unrelated to the content of the article, and discussion of which category this article should be placed under is irrelevant here. The question is, is the subject of the article notable? I believe it is. Do not accuse me of underhand tactics again, it is insulting and wrong. I have no interest in seeing this article deleted, and therefore will not ask for evidence to that effect. Talk about whatever you like, notability is the discussion here, and publication in sources such as the afore-mentioned book helps assert it. By the way, you have not stated your reason for wanting the article deleted, which renders it worthless. Parrot of Doom (talk) 11:48, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I am publicizing your support for SafeSpeed ("Paul, you have my support on your campaign..."). Also, please strive for articles that advocate no single point of view, whatever your personal tastes. This means that you must be even-handed when asking for evidence (do not go on more "fishing trips"). Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer. Please take these views into account when judging the suitability of this article. It's depth of coverage is not substantial anymore. It is not truly a group, but the work of Paul Smith, it is no more a national or international organisation than any online forum. Thanks in advance for your cooperation. Basingwerk (talk) 12:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: it might be sufficient to talk of the "group" in the past tense; as its influence only existed briefly. While the "site" still exists, the "campaign" died when Paul Smith did.
(indent)I couldn't give a flying inflatable pig what you think of my private views. It is my actions on this project that count. Whether or not I support Safespeed is irrelevant. I have deleted swathes of material from that page that could be seen to be supportive of the group, but as it was unreferenced it went in the bin. You appear to be quite deluded as to the purpose of this discussion. If you are going to make claims of bias or a lack of neutrality in this discussion, provide diffs and entries I have made to do so, or stop right now before people with thinner skin than I start taking notice. For anyone else who may be interested, I am the third largest contributor to this start-class article. Frankly I have more important articles to attend to. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
In response to "Yes, SafeSpeed was notable, for a period. It is no longer", as far as Wikipedia is concerned notability is not temporary. Abraham Lincoln didn't stop being notable when he died and if, as you just said, the group were notable at one point, they still are regardless of their current level of influence. Nev1 (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I have already dealt with that, Nev1. We speak of Lincoln in the past tense. It might be sufficient to talk of SafeSpeed in the past tense. SafeSpeed is synonymous with its founder, who is dead. The article doesn't faithfully convey it's demise. Furthermore, while WP:NTEMP, relevance is temporary. If the power of SafeSpeed is diminished, then it is no longer a pressure group but merely a web site, that used to run a campaign. It becomes an historical event. The web site is something different, but SafeSpeed's glory days are over (for good?)
If you feel the article needs improvement, then improve it. If you don't want to, then don't bother. But don't try asserting that just because it could stand a bit of spit and polish it should be deleted, because that rationale would see more than half the en.wiki articles disappear overnight. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. That the group was notable does not really seem to be in dispute, and as notability is not temporary, as Nev1 says, then this group remains notable. I also find the unfounded accusations of a lack of neutrality in the writing to be risible. --MalleusFatuorum 14:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
PofD - did you pledge your support to the SafeSpeed campaign, or not? If so, the lack of neutrality exists in the "writer", not the "writing", doesn't it? I've already responded to Nev1's point, so Malleus_Fatuorum is adding nothing new.Basingwerk (talk) 14:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC) PS: and let's have a little less of the "old boy's club" as well, please.
I suggest that you watch your mouth Basingwerk. If you want to make any accusations then please have the courage to do so openly. Your logic appears to be no better than your manners. We are supposed to be judging the writing, not the writer, although it is clear from your comments that you have not yet internalised that fundamental difference. Whether PoD did or did not "pledge support" to the Safe Speed campaign has no bearing on that. I might as well question your motivations for wanting this article deleted. Did you "pledge support" to another group promising that you would have it deleted? --MalleusFatuorum 15:03, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi, MF. No, I pledged support to no-one. But we know that PoD did pledge support to the Safe Speed campaign. If you have read something into that, then that is in your own mind. Would you prefer not to know things? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps I've been a little hasty. I'm not saying that PofD is a bad man - far from it, I'm sure he's ace. He really gets stuck in. He can edit any wiki article he likes, but he has chosen to aggressively protect the article of a group that he supports politically. I've said enough - ignore it as you wish. But (as a general note) "tough-guy" editors should not throw out one-sided invitations for evidence, nor should they they be involved with the groups concerned. Let's just use our common sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Basingwerk (talk • contribs) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
No, you've said too much. You have presented no argument for the deletion of this article. All you've done is sling some accusations around. Any more and I may take the issue elsewhere. I will not have people cast doubt upon my neutrality and commitment to this project. Parrot of Doom (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Needs more RS refs adding but that appears to be easily sortable. Looks notable enough to me given the links PoD has brought to the discussion. As for the rest of the comments seen here... anyone smell anything coming from under that bridge over there? --WebHamster 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"All New Electronics Self Teaching Guide"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"All New Electronics Self Teaching Guide"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"All New Electronics Self Teaching Guide"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Article subject is a book for which no reliable sources are provided and no assertion of notability is made in the article which meets the criteria of WP:NB. The title gets a large number of ghits but all the ones I looked at were either bookseller's advertising or were blogs and forums that had been spammed. After the first three or four pages of results I am now bored with trawling through them. It seems to me that this article is just one more item in an internet wide spamming fest for this book. Possibly there is an article in there, but the authors are going to need to identify the reliable sources first. SpinningSpark 15:11, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: For reasons given by nominator. There is a single link to this page, from Electronics, but this seems inappropriate since the book is intended for the hobbyist and is not a general reference.--RDBury (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nomination and Notability (books). The book might be notable, but the article certainly doesn't show or claim it. Seems like WP:PROMOTION. • Anakin(talk) 15:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Notability (books). While its hard to get info to show notability for some books which probably deserve articles, i suspect most textbooks and how to books dont cut it, unless they were the first in their genre or have some unusual quality which helps them stand out. Its up to author of this article to show special reasons for this books notability, which they have not.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Shayan Italia"}} 29], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Shayan Italia"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Shayan Italia"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW(Talk) 03:29, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Has coverage in independent sources per Hindu, Guadian, Times, a search of Google News turns up more reliable sources. Hekerui (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
All coverage is trivial. Coverage of subject has not been shown to meet any of our inclusion criteria. Subject has yet to release any albums, is not considered "important and widely cited by peers," has never "received a notable award or honor, or... been often nominated for one," has not "made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field," and fails all 12 points laid out at WP:MUSIC. L0b0t (talk) 16:15, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Addendum - The 4 sources in the article are as follows: Guardian- (Aug 2007) a blurb about the upcoming (Nov 2007) release of subject's 1st album (as of Sep. 2009 album has yet to be released), Times- (Mar 2008) brief mention (amongst a larger review of other artists) of subject failing to find success in music biz., Hindu- (Oct 2007) brief bio and mention that subject's song "made it to the top ten on Britain’s popular TV airplay Music Chart," Presswire- (no date given but press release refers to 2008 in future tense)distributes press release from subject himself. All, I posit, trivial mentions. L0b0t (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree, there are five articles in reliable sources that focus on Italia, not trivial mentions. Hekerui (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. The coverage in the several sources cited in the article goes well beyond trivial. Listing those notability criteria that he doesn't meet is irrelevant since he meets both WP:GNG and the first criterion of WP:BAND.--Michig (talk) 11:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC) There are also plenty of additional sources, e.g. [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54].--Michig (talk) 11:24, 6 September 2009 (UTC) And then there's the performance and interview on Frost Over The World.--Michig (talk) 12:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - The inclusion guidelines at WP:MUSIC are quite specific. For instance, "two or more albums on a major label." (There are other ways to qualify for an article, but this one is addressed to whether the person has a known quantity of musical output). Based on a quick web search I don't see any evidence that Shayan Italia has yet released even a single album, so I don't think he meets WP:MUSIC. Note the listing at amazon.co.uk for the 'Deliverance' album, which shows it as 'currently unavailable.' This suggests to me that it was never released, though he might have mailed out advance copies to a few people. The Amazon listing does not give the name of any record label who might have issued it, so 'major label' does not seem like a possibility. If he can ever get his stuff published, we could reconsider the matter later. EdJohnston (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The subject seems to fall under the people famous for one event guideline. All the sources talk about his eBay sale and his supposed bright future in the music (which has yet to materialize) some sources mention the imminent (Nov 2007) album release but (as I said above) it is now Sep 2009 and album has yet to be released. None of the sources provided establish a notability that clears the hurdle at the relevant guidelines, all mentions of subject are trivial. Subject still fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:ANYBIO, WP:BAND, et al. When this fellow actually releases an album, and if that album is critically acclaimed, then he might warrant an article but now, not so much. L0b0t (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Two albums on a major label is only one of the criteria of WP:MUSIC, and it doesn't matter how many criteria this article fails so long as it passes one of them, which it does - the first and most important one. The argument that Amazon shows that the album was never released is nonsense. See this which states that the album was released on 12 Nov 2007 by Universal Records and is in stock.--Michig (talk) 16:42, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I pointed out that the 'Deliverance' album is shown as unavailable. You've properly countered with an another Amazon listing suggesting that 'Shayan Italia' exists as an album, and is stated as being released by Universal. Amazon does sometimes list self-published items, so a positive result may need confirmation. If such a CD exists as a genuine Universal release, can anyone confirm that fact from the Universal catalog? Can anyone provide a reliable source that shows what tracks were on the album? Since Shayan Italia seems very good at publicizing his activities, why is information about this alleged album so hard to find? Do any of our editors actually own this album? EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Haha Ed, browse through the article's history. IF those albums exist, then two of the article's contributors would have a copy, but they're the same editor really AND they are banned. Seriously, the main (first) contributor, IMO, is the subject or his brother.
I've just searched the Universal catalog (www.umusic.com--right?) and there's no Shayah Italia. I am somewhat puzzled about these albums since the orginal (bloated) entry never even mentioned it--see this version for instance (in the edit summary, editor is yelling at me). Drmies (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Following up on the search of the Universal site for the conjectured album by Shayan Italia, I observe that there is no 'Shayan Italia' shown under S at this page at universalmusic.com. EdJohnston (talk) 04:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
My guess is that he self-published some albums and sold them through Amazon. He has most likely been negotiating with record companies and may have optimistically pre-announced that he would be released on Universal. That's the only way I can account for the Amazon listing for an album titled 'Shayan Italia' found by User:Michig. That entry has an ASIN number (Amazon's stock number) but the entry does not offer a number in the Universal catalog. EdJohnston (talk) 04:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I have very mixed feelings here. On the one hand, much of the coverage is entirely trivial and relates only to that one thing, the dude selling part of his future profits on Ebay. On the other, at least there IS coverage. But then, there are too many questions here about these records, for instance--surely if the guy had released records, or at least one, on a major label, then we wouldn't have to be searching all over the place. (I think I said this before, above: in the earlier versions of the article, the author/subject made no mention whatsoever of an earlier album, only of the upcoming album.) I have spent a considerable amount of time and energy on the article (on policing it, if you will), at first in an attempt to make it look presentable and thus keepable, but I see now that it should be for nothing. Delete. Drmies (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 16:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep this appears to be a very well referenced article. Editor above provided more references also. Ikip (talk) 17:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I did, as a good-faith attempt--but I do not believe that these establish notability. A note about YouTube, a note about Ebay, and one article from an Indian paper--that's simply not enough, in my opinion. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep have heard of him, references points towards notability. there is to mutch pointing to strong notability that i even question why this article was put up for possible deletion in the first place..--Judo112 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I beg to differ on the idea that there are things here pointing to "strong notability," and I'm sure the nominator feels the same way. Drmies (talk) 23:29, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 00:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - notable for the eBay story which I remember reading about, and clearly appears to be doing well on the music side as well. Furthermore, article has improved.Tris2000 (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep - notable, well referenced, and not another run of the mill article.. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 15:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Article has not improved, subject still fails any and all relevant inclusion criteria: WP:GNG, WP:MUSIC, WP:ARTIST, WP:BAND, and WP:ANYBIO. Subject has never released an album, cited sources all speak of album's imminent (November 2007) release, yet it never happened. The eBay incident falls under WP:ONEEVENT and all the sources cited thus far include only trivial mentions of the subject in regards to the eBay incident. So far, no one opining "keep" has based their reasoning on anything other than WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IVEHEARDOFTHAT. L0b0t (talk) 16:25, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The cited stuff in the career section is in reliable sources and as a whole goes beyond liking/knowing the subject imo. Hekerui (talk) 17:22, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Your opinion ('imo') would be more convincing if you had made any response at all to any of the new information added to the AfD since your original post. EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Don't be belittling. Instead of posting endlessly here I tried to improve the article. Hekerui (talk) 17:36, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
(see update below) He has released at least one album, Shayan Italia on the Universal label, and possibly a second (ThisGuardian article says that Universal is to release Deliverence; although Amazon lists the album under FM Publishing Ltd label. This article says that a single from the album was distributed by Universal.) At least one single charted on the TV Airplay Music Chart
Update Looking into it deeper, it seems that Italia's albums are on the FM Publishing Ltd label, and are only (possibly) distributed by Universal. This website lists Dolly Italia as the contact person for the FM label, and the label's website www.fmpublishing.co.uk is a deadlink - so its is quite likely that the music was self-published and the subject does not meet WP:MUSICBIO in that respect. GNG may still apply though. Abecedare (talk) 01:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per guideline. Coverage in reliable sources is sufficient to be called "significant", and is on several topics, so ONEVENT doesn't apply. Bongomatic 01:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"DJ Pusspuss"}} 3], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"DJ Pusspuss"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"DJ Pusspuss"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Pusspuss has several links in his article, but they bring mostly trivial mentions, as a google search does. I could not find news articles in Google News. Althought the article mentions an award, I could not find it, just that he performed in an award show.--Legionarius (talk) 07:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Question Please, under what criteria? Sorry, but I cannot see it.--Legionarius (talk) 09:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Weak delete No references, so no evidence of notability. It can't possibly pass WP:MUSIC if there are no references establishing this. However, maybe something in that huge link farm establishes his notability. Any editor who wants to keep this should sort through them in a hurry TheBilly (talk) 12:28, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Keep. I meant to clean this up already but will deal with it now, although unlikely to be found in mainstream press I believe there is suffieceint refs available including a couple interviews. Benjiboi 16:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
CommentI could not find any. If the refs are there, could you please cite? That can save the article.--Legionarius (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. I also feel I must comment that I feel this AfD is a result of my recent comments about the nom's editing of Flavio Alves in response to this item on the admin bio board. Benjiboi 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Talk about coincidences. Sorry, I never even saw you there. Admins: if you think this is grounds for exclusion, please go ahead.--Legionarius (talk) 17:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, that is quite the coincidence. I was the first reply on the admin board and, I believe, the only replies on the talk page of that article. Regardless I'm working on this now, it's long overdue for a clean-up. Benjiboi 18:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No harm done. I actually just saw the creator was an IP. Please, I see Pusspuss has a broad range of activities, which one are you using as a base to claim notability?--Legionarius (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you have greatly changed my plans for the day so you'll have to forgive if I don't agree with your assessment that "no harm has been done". Thanks for your keen interest in this article, I hope it is indeed improved and survives this AfD. Benjiboi 18:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, this AfD has a long way to go, five days at least. Are you DJ Pusspuss?--Legionarius (talk) 18:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been accused of being many of the folks in the bios I've worked on, even being a part of Rosie's O'Donnell's R Family Cruises. Because of both real world and wikipedia attacks and threats I keep my information private. I also feel you're starting to cross the line into harassment so will ask nicely for you to leave me alone. You've put the article up for AfD and now I'm addressing the AfD by improving the article. Benjiboi 18:39, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. My question was just if the article was a WP:Auto or not. No worries.--Legionarius (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I felt I answered that and also feel even asking and in the manner and your responses on this page and the Flavio Alves article and admin board discussion seem at least confrontational which doesn't seem needed or within the spirit of wp. Of all the bios I've been accused of being the only i felt I needed to deny was Chris Crocker (internet celebrity) who gets daily death threats. I don't deserve to die for editing here. Benjiboi 20:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
(outdent)Benjiboi, the last thing I want to be is confrontational, and I am sorry you see it this way. If you feel I wronged or attacked you in any way, you can ask for a RfC or for help from other editors.
Talking about content: Looks like Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., Benji(Benjamin?) Hollman and DJ PussPuss are all the same. [55][56][57]. Is this the case? Because we could merge the two articles and just sort out references and NPOV. (Sister Kitty looks notable) --Legionarius (talk) 20:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I rather doubt your statement "the last thing I want to be is confrontational, and I am sorry you see it this way" as your actions seems to suggest otherwise. I also see that Sister Roma was at quite a few of those events as well, shall we simply merge all of them into one super-personality and call it a day? Benjiboi 21:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I can't see the link with Sister Roma...--Legionarius (talk) 21:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay - you're getting close to wikistalking, Legionarius. Link one is totally not a reliable source, and links 2 & 3 don't even support your claim. And from personal knowledge, you're barking up the wrong tree. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 22:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Satyr: Please, I am not wikistalking anyone (or stalking, for that matter). From the beginning: I just asked if Benjiboi was the subject to see if we should put a tag "auto" or not. He said he did not want to answer or that he is not the subject, does not matter. Period - no worries. Now, I was just asking if DJ Pussspuss=Benjamin Holmann=Sister Kitty so we could merge the articles and identify the person in the article. Nothing else. If he would know, great - after all, he wrote both articles. If it is not, I am happy too. About the links: first looks like is somebody from the group who (supposedly) knows Pusspuss personally and state they are the same; second: a [PR that says "Benji Holmann/DJ Pusspuss" on the right; third: a link that says that Benji Holmann is part of SFLNC. Pusspuss is not listed as a member of SFNLC, but ays so in the article. No matter what, facts: the article is much better now; I still do not think DJ Pusspuss is notable and I am dropping out of this discussion.--Legionarius (talk) 01:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Electrical installations in Herrenwyk"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Electrical installations in Herrenwyk"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Electrical installations in Herrenwyk"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpartazHumbug! 17:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
badly factored article talks about two unrelated items (power station was demolished before hvdc converter even started), no assertion of notability, highly unlikely search box entry, fork of content at Lübeck-Herrenwyk and Baltic Cable, no substantial content not already in those two articles, no references or other additions in over a year, was discussed for AFD in July 2008 and no improvement since then. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:29, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. As I was the person who created this article, I would like to give a background why this was done. Originally, major part of this information given in this article was the only section of Herrenwyk article.[58] The Herrenwyk article was demerged because it seemed not logical to the article about the part of city talks mainly about electrical installations in the area. As it was dermerged from the Herrenwyk article, it is not the fort of its cntent. Later the article was expanded based on the article in the German wiki. Unfortunately, the Herrenwyk article and the article in the German wiki were poorly referenced, and therefore also this article still has lack of references. Beside of the power plant and the Baltic Cable converter station, there is also third item, namely 110 kV / 20 kV sub-station, which is not a part of the Baltic Cable. Information in this article is actually not covered in the Herrenwyk nor the Baltic Cable articles. Therefore, if the consensus would be that this article does not deserve to be a separate article, it would be necessary to merge this information into the Herrenwyk article before deleting this article. Beagel (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Correction. This is a first AfD nomination for this article and there was no AfD discussion in July 2009 as was stated by the nominator. There was a request for speedy deletion (CSD A7), which was denied. And the article was improved during the period of speedy deletion request. Beagel (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Further to correction (comment by nominator) - there was discussion of nominating this article for deletion in July 2008 but it was never nominated then. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment, this article should be about the power station. By all means mention and links should be provided for Lübeck-Herrenwyk and Baltic Cable but the subject of the article should be the power station otherwise, per Wtshymanski, it does not really have a rational subject. Sources in English seem to be hard to come by but it can at least be established that it existed. In my view, power stations are a large and important enough construction to be intrinsically notable, even demolished ones, but the nominator is right that more sources are needed. SpinningSpark 16:06, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly, you propose to rename this article to Herrenwyk power station and move information about the converter station to the Baltic Cable article and about he 110 kV / 20 kV sub-station to the Herrenwyk article? I think taht could be acceptable solution. Beagel (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
First, the substation is pretty low down the electrical infrastructure heirarchy and non-notable as far as I can see. If it belongs anywhere, a mention along with the inverter on whose site it resides would be appropriate, not the article for the town, but I would be inclined to lose it altogether. Secondly, although you keep referring to it, we do not have an article for Herrenwyk, it is a redirect to Lübeck-Herrenwyk which is itself a very short stub. There does not seem any point to me in Lübeck-Herrenwyk existing at all in its current state and should be merged with Lübeck which pretty much already says everything that is in the Lübeck-Herrenwyk article. SpinningSpark 17:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
(Comment by nominator) Agree that not every substation is notable - you'll find one every couple of miles most places and no-one writes about them (in general) unless something blows up or someone breaks in and injures himself. The converter station is already described at Baltic Cable. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
I fully agree with your comment concerning substations and I don't think that there should be a separate article about this substation. I also agree, that the Baltic Cable article covers the converter station as a part of this installation. It leaves only the power plant. I see here two options: if this power plant s notable (I think that probably is) and there is enough information (I have some doubts about this), it probably deserves its own article and in this case it would be reasonable to cleanup and rename the current article. If not, it probably should be deleted. Beagel (talk) 17:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: Relisted for final time JForget 22:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
keep as an article about the power station and rename, per above. Most large-scale power generation facilities are notable, I have no opinion regarding whether the substation should be mentioned on another article, but I don't think it needs to be here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep and deal with further as Thryduulf suggests. Seems reasonable to me. DGG ( talk ) 22:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
We don't "rename" articles. There's nothing to keep that's not already in Baltic cable and Lübeck. There's nothing to say about the power station and mere existence is not notability. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Abdennour Cherif El Ouazzani"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Abdennour Cherif El Ouazzani"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Abdennour Cherif El Ouazzani"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 14:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This link [59] shows that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't pro. He also has limited independent news coverage. Spiderone 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - on second thoughts, since Struway improved the article drastically, I think it's now worth keeping - a number of sources plus a big money transfer means this guy is porbably notable. GiantSnowman 11:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment The article and the link quoted above were a bit out of date. This shows he is now playing regularly for his new club in the Algerian top division, which is not proven to be fully professional (the division, not the club). And one or two references have been added to the article, one of which focuses on the role played by the player for his previous club and one contains a short interview regarding his transfer. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice to see. I'll have to try and get more people in here to see if this is enough to pass WP:GNG. Spiderone 15:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the article looks much better now, well done. I'm still unsure if he passes WP:GNG though...GiantSnowman 16:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep now. Article contains several sources from various Algerian publications, including verification of his transfer fee of £6million-plus; even if the Algerian league isn't proven to be fully-pro it's pretty serious money-wise at the top end... I'd say news coverage is now sufficient to pass WP:GNG. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep plays in a notable league and article is well-referenced Eldumpo (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Ahmed Mekehout"}} 2], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Ahmed Mekehout"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Ahmed Mekehout"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Appears to fail WP:ATHLETE as he hasn't played in a professional league. Spiderone 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:52, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom. If notable, find sources. GauchoDude (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Samir Bentayeb"}} 16], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Samir Bentayeb"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Samir Bentayeb"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:05, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No assertion of notability made in the article as the league isn't professional. Spiderone 12:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per lack of third-part sources Rirunmot (talk) 02:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Per nom, above reasons. GauchoDude (talk) 03:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Abdelkrim Mammeri"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Abdelkrim Mammeri"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Abdelkrim Mammeri"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
No assertion of notability. This link [60] implies that he hasn't made an appearance in a league that isn't even professional. Spiderone 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - captaining his side to a national cup victory is enough for me. GiantSnowman 11:20, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I've added a few references from some quick googling, and I think the player is notable enough - especially for captaining his side to the 2009 cup. Jogurney (talk) 04:53, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep and rename to Sharpe family murders. This topic (broadly conceived) has received coverage that satisfies our general notability guidelines, and this coverage has persisted half a decade later. That said, the article as stands is a coatrack for the event of the murders, which are more notable than the individual, and so in line with WP:BLP1E the article is to renamed and refocused with the murders as its topic. Skomorokh 14:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Non-notable person known only for having murdered his wife and daughter. While horrendous, these kind of events are unfortunately not rare. The only sources are (as to be expected) a short`newspaper article that he got convicted, a notice that his house is on sale, and the curt proceedings (a primary source). There will almost certainly be some more newspaper articles about this crime, but clearly WP:BLP1E applies. I don't think that Wikipedia can or should have an article on every single murderer who ever walked this Earth. Crusio (talk) 12:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete There are plenty of sources available for this article (including major features in major newspapers; the crime was reasonably notorious, at least in Melbourne) but I agree, BLP1E applies and unfortunately murders of this kind are not particularly rare. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Most murderers aren't notable and there is no claim that this one is. Joe Chill (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I don't live in Australia, but judging by the sources, this doesn't seem to be much different than the Susan Smith case that captivated the United States (i.e., person murders family in a bizarre manner, hides bodies, and then goes on national television in a fake emotional plea for their return). I'd add that the Google search by the nominator was looking for the exact phrase "John Myles Sharpe (Australian murderer)", so it's not surprising that those five consecutive words didn't turn up. Searching for plain old "John Myles Sharpe" "john+myles+sharpe"&cf=all turns up this, and it's a matter of opinion whether that's enough to be notable. Seems to have been big news down under in '04 and '05, but on the other hand, Speargun Sharpe doesn't seem to have rated his own book in the True Crime section of the bookstore. Mandsford (talk) 18:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment The Google search mentioned above is automatically added, I didn't do that. I haven't looked into the Susan Smith article in detail, but to me it looks to be a WP:BLP1E case, too. Perhaps an encyclopedic article could be written about "people who murder their family/children and go on TV to ask for help in finding them" (but with a better tile :-), but individual articles about all these sad cases (which sadly will all be forgotten in another few years except by those who were directly touched) doesn't seem very reasonable. These articles will never become encyclopedic and cannot present more than: murder description, attempts to hide the crime, discovery and arrest, conviction. Adding the fact that their house is for sale/was sold really crowns it. Sorry, tis is newspaper article stuff, not encyclopedic content. --Crusio (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry that I thought you did the Google search. These only seem to have started recently, but now I know. Thanks. Mandsford (talk) 14:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Where will it end? There are thousands (probably tens of thousands) of articles similar to the notoriety of this one (initial [inter]national shock at the gravity of the crime, then quick fading from the media, the a trial some months/years later, to be followed by lingering but "limited" web-based discussion and pages such as this...). The point is, if this page is deleted, then ALL of the pages on wiki about individual murders or attempted murders that arent notorious or unique enough to become "significantly internationally famous" would therefore be eligible for deletion too. For me, the point is not deletion of a minor article [that's why wiki has a search function - to find the exact info you want from amongst all the other minor articles], but it's about how the article is presented (which seems to be the primary criteria for deletion here) Jabberjawjapan (talk) 04:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep as per Jabberjawjapan's comment- while this guy is no more notable than the many other murderers listed on wikipedia, he is no less notable either. Precisely why this guy has been singled out for deletion I don't know. Unless there is: a) some reason that this particular case is less notable than all the others like it, or b) any plans to eliminate all the other articles as well, I see no reason that it should be deleted while others are left intact. There are plenty of individuals listed on wikipedia who are not "significantly internationally famous", but that doesn't immediately make them non-notable.122.106.156.3 (talk) 10:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment on Jabberjawjapan and preceding IP: I don't think that WP:Other stuff exists is a good or even valid keep argument. As for why this article: I stumbled upon a similar one during new article patrol and then went through the category "People convicted of murder by Victoria (Australia)". WP remains a work in progress, many thousands of articles still need to be added, many thousands of others may need to be deleted or merged, and countless thousands of stubs need to be expanded. In none of these cases can we just say, oh, there still thousands to go, lets not do this. I look forward to your arguments showing that this person is notable. --Crusio (talk) 10:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I note that the oft cited WP:BLP1E (sorry - couldnt easily check the link to "OTHERSTUFFEXISTS" - it goes to a "WP" DAB) talks about "a low-profile individual". Then again, how many "low profile individuals" are given names such as "The Mornington Monster"? For many, the shocking nature of this crime means its not low profile. Again I iterate that i think all this attention stems from the poor presentation of this article (and the absence here of any comment or attempt [besides my own recent ones so far] of re-editing or salvaging it).Jabberjawjapan (talk) 12:34, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, sorry for the OTHERSTUFFEXISTS mistake, it's corrected. I don't think that "The Mornington Monster" indicates any special notability. Newspapers will often use such terms/headlines to generate sensation which increases sales. It doesn't take away that this person is known only for this one single event, which only generated some news coverage for a very limited period of time. And although I recognize that you are improving the article, it still is not very encyclopedic and as far as I can see never will be. --Crusio (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I note this website [61] lists only 29 "Australians convicted of murder", with one of them being Sharpe... And yes, its a single murder event (one that was perpetrated twice), but made more heinous by his callous post-mortem behaviour Jabberjawjapan (talk) 13:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Sure it was heinous and callous, but as far as I know, that's not one of the criteria for notability. (BTW, even if this guy is a callous murderer, WP:BLP still applies, so I am not sure that the accusation of abusing his daughter is admissible under BLP - not saying it isn't, I just don't know). As for the website listing only 29 Australian convicted murderers, I am not sure what you mean with that. Do you mean to say that murder in Australia is rarer than we might think? Note that the source for this website is Wikipedia (see small print at bottom). --Crusio (talk) 14:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I guess the info is based on wiki, but who compiled that shortlist (out of all the cases of murder in australia)? anyway, so far this debate focus has been on sharpe and BLP notability - so why not simply rename/re-edit the article to something not using his name?...i never really liked the 'australian murderer' tag anyway Jabberjawjapan (talk) 15:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That sounds like it might lead to a solution. What I would think could be a good solution would be one article List of Australian murderers, along the lines of List of Portuguese supercentenarians, where each case has a few lines of bio. In the current case, that could include number and relationship with victims, and details such as the fact that he went on TV to call for a search. The current (and other similar) articles could then become a redirect to this list. --Crusio (talk) 15:37, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Jabberjawjapan's comment and pursuant to WP:BLP1E, where is the tip over point to attain notability? Consider the sentence, "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." The event/individual has been given coverage beyond newspaper reportage at the time. Jabberjawjapan has provided evidence for two TV shows (1st in 2004, 2nd in 2009) which describe the event/individual and two books (1st in 2005, 2nd in 2008). These constitute persistent coverage in reliable secondary sources: the tip over point has passed, hence the article should be kept.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 10:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Consider Perpetrators subsection, third dot point with "Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role" In said TV shows & books significant attention was drawn to Sharpe, to his use of the spear gun and to his duplicitious presentation as a concerned father/husband while knowing he was guilty. Once again persistent coverage has been shown in reliable secondary sources.shaidar cuebiyar ( talk | contribs ) 20:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Featured on Crime Investigation Australia (TV series) and reported as "one of Australia's most ghastly crimes"/"one of the most violent crimes ever perpetrated in Australia"[62]. I tend to agree with Jabberjawjapan regarding the "The Mornington Monster" label. I'm not convinced that journalists invent sensationalist labels simply to make insignificant crimes significant. Location (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Note: subsequent to half of the discussion here, over the last week or so, the article has been significantly modified particularly to include more details of the participants/events, as well as the ongoing effects/significance of the case in the media...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Move to Sharpe family murders or something similar. The crime is notable, but the perpetrator is not. Moving would satisfy WP:BLP1E while retaining what is a valuable article. \Backslash Forwardslash/ (talk) 12:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Amelia Ellis"}} 59], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Amelia Ellis"}} 150], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Amelia Ellis"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 14:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Unremarkable author. Prod tag removed by single purpose account which has previously been used for promoting this author on WP. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:28, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Googling brings up very little, other than sales pages for her books. -- Hoary (talk) 03:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per the lack of relevant, reliable coverage. I have been unable to find any coverage about her on Google News Archive. Cunard (talk) 06:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Changed to keep. The reviews below indicate that this author passes WP:CREATIVE. Cunard (talk) 18:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 15:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep: This is a British-German author. Google results vary wildly depending on where in the world you execute the query. Google Germany brings up dozens of relevant secondary sources including many independent book reviews, thus the author clearly meets the notability criteria (WP:CREATIVE Rule 3). (If it is okay to post external links in this discussion, I'll be glad to add some.) Additionally, rule 2 of WP:CREATIVE applies as well as the author arguably has - 25 years after Amateur City by Katherine V. Forrest - created the first post-feminist lesbian mystery (series), a stepping stone in the genre. Dana1964 (talk) 09:52, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes do please post external links of independent book reviews. Not a lot of them, instead just the most significant three. -- Hoary (talk) 13:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Three independent book reviews available online, all discussing Ellis' first book. The listed sites also feature reviews of other books in the series. I deliberately chose non-LGBT related review sites to highlight the fact that the books have gained attention outside of LGBT media, something few lesbian mysteries achieve. Dana1964 (talk) 00:54, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Book Review 1 (Largest German book review site, 60 dedicated reviewers, >13,000 in-depth reviews.)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 12:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep: The book reviews posted seem decent, it would be better to see something a more mainstream like Der Spiegel. Since it seems that she writes in German, I would be more convinced if she had an article in the German Wikipedia, but she only has a red link in 'Liste der Krimi-Autoren'. There are several links here from list type articles, nothing that would be missed if the article were deleted but enough to be considered.--RDBury (talk) 05:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
I went ahead and added the first review posted above to the article. It seems not too spammy and has biographical info.--RDBury (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment The German reviews look ok but otherwise I can't find anything about her, not a thing. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Keep per ehr notability. i have heard of her. external links point to notability and not the opposit.--Judo112 (talk) 13:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Black African genetic contribution to the population of the European continent"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Delete. Content fork aside, a cleanup won't help (it's horribly written to the point of being painful to read). Can't say nonsense - I was able to read enough of it to know it does make sense (i.e., all of it (!)), but it all boils down to a content fork. I can't even call POV - that, to me implies politics. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 16:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Changed !vote to Speedy Delete G5 (Article created by banned user). This one's on the fringe of that if anything, but I'm thinking it should be OK. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
NoteI nominated this article for rescue because it is completly sourced its kind of messy but that means it should go under wp:articles for cleanup .The Count of Monte Cristo. (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Agreed,
Week keep this article is well sourced although it may need some cleanup also it should be noted that it is not a POV fork since it is reliably sourced (E.G from scientific journals ) . Podoko (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
Delete and send article creator back to the 19th century. "Negroids"?!?! What next, articles on the existence of aether? Fences&Windows 23:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The article no longer uses the word NegriodsConcerned Editor (talk) 23:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)Strike, editor Sophian under different signature.
Note: several of the comments above with various signatures (The Count of Monte Cristo, Podoko, and Concerned Editor), were all left by User:SOPHIAN, who is the creator of this article. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:25, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete pointless fork.— DædαlusContribs 00:59, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Userfy, redirect, or merge I am concerned that the first edit of the nominator was this AFD nomination, in violation of WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE.[63] Could a kind note to the creator have allowed him to userfy or redirect this page to a more proper place, avoiding the disruptive process of AFD? We will never know now. I don't really understand this article, and I doubt anyone else here does too, maybe not because it is badly written, but because we are all ignorant of genetics. That said, I see it is well referenced. I am going to encourage the creator to userfy the article, regardless of AFD delete, as should have been done originally. Ikip (talk) 01:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Update, damn, I hate how editors bad behavior makes me look bad. The creator has been blocked indefinitely. Ikip (talk) 01:10, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Hi Ikip, the answer is that a kind note almost certainly wouldn't have worked. I don't mean to be rude, but I nominated this with probably a lot more background knowledge than you have, I think your concern with my actions are misplaced. Dougweller (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge wherever appropriate if we can find attribution to an expert of the gist of the article (i.e. that the sub-saharan genetic contribution to the genetic makeup of the European populations is very small). Otherwise, this is OR and should be deleted.--Ramdrake (talk) 13:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge with African admixture in Europe or Genetic history of Europe. This article and African admixture in Europe are about the same thing. What is the difference between the subject matter? However African admixture in Europe is also subject to deletion/merge pressures, so maybe Genetic history of Europe is more survivable.--Toddy1 (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
comment I don't see the need for an extended discussion on the matter. SOPHIAN who created the article has been indefinitely blocked for disruptive edits related to creating this article. There is no difference in subject matter between this article and African admixture in Europe. The reason he created it was simply to avoid having to come to a consensus with other editors. This is not the first time SOPHIAN has created a content fork, he was blocked for recreating Sub-Saharan DNA admixture in Europe, only a day after it was deleted. I therefore see this as worthy of "speedy close". Whatever content is here is already being discussed and debated in African admixture in Europe, and the article is therefore redundant. The title of the article is very direct but it is unscientific, politically incorrect and opens up a can of worms as to exactly is a "black African". The question we should address is whether to preserve the title as a redirect or delete it altogether. Wapondaponda (talk) 06:34, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I see no need for a redirect. Redirects make sense when an article has been around for a long time and has accumulated a body of links (and perhaps extra-wiki bookmarks) to it which you don't want to break. Or, when it's something which is likely to be typed in cold to a search box. This is neither of those. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete because it is a self evident POV fork, the work of one author whose opinion clashed with others in other articles about essentially the same subject.--Andrew Lancaster (talk) 09:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete -SOPHIAN is obviously trying to circumvent the collective decisions of the WP community. How does a user who is indefinitely banned manage to create articles???????PB666yap 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The article was created before the block. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete - a complete POV fork. The Ogre (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy deleteJack007 (talk) 12:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Covisint"}} 5810], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Covisint"}} 660], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Covisint"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Comment the article needs a total revamp and a good scrubbing to remove the promotional tone. It seems to be well known in the auto industry. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep and totally overhaul. You can tell when articles were written by marketers as it's impossible to tell what the bloody organisation actually does. As far as I can fathom it allows car companies to talk to each other and sell things to each other online, or in jargon it's an "automotive eMarketplace", or a "B2B online exchange". It seems it started off as a supposedly neutral auction site after wranglings about whether it broke anti-trust laws, took forever to get a CEO, then got bought, thought about and balked at an IPO, and finally went into the online healthcare business. After wading through the churnalism that passes for journalism in the business world, here's some articles about Covisint:[64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98]Fences&Windows 17:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep but clean up -- This sounds like a notable company, but it is an extremely spammy article, and full of abbreviations and jargon that mean nothing to the general reader. I have just given it a valid category and removed the "locations" section, which is better dealt with by using a link to the company website, which will certainly be maintained. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Mark Goldstraw"}} 40], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Mark Goldstraw"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Mark Goldstraw"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 14:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
See WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime stories. This person has no historical significance that would merit an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). He committed a murder that was briefly in the news, and that is all. But we are not a news source. Delete. Dominic·t 08:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: A regular murderer. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Week keep in that I think spree killers (especially those in the UK) are notable; however, I would acknowledge that he does appear to be your garden variety spree killer. Location (talk) 06:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Cindi Love"}} 61], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Cindi Love"}} 23], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Cindi Love"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 14:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines. Serpentduv (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Disagree: For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader. Aristophanes68 (talk) 10:38, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment: Your argument seems to appeal to moralizing rather than locating sources to verify notability. The encyclopedia is supposed to document the verifiable state of a topic others have noted. You can appreciate the problems in trying to rely on sources that tend to be more promotional than scholarly. If you are concerned with lack of coverage by mainstream media, you may be able to make a case for independent coverage by unrelated but edited special interest publications- educational journals, unrelated churches, etc. The wiki criteria want something more than "local" interest but if you can find sources that could be presumed to be reliable and independent at least you could argue about this subjective area. Arguments about "worthy cause" and "I would say" from an anon source may not make her life encyclopedic as this could cover just about everyone. The social networking sites may be more receptive however. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Aristophanes said "I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements" I was about to remark on that fact, together with the observation than most of those references were 'trivial'. We have no other way of judging if someone is notable, so I would say she fails WP:NOhconfucius (talk) 14:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - I didn't have too much trouble finding news items about her, and the article already had a couple of worthwhile references. While it is true that some of the references only have trivial mentions, a few are definitely non-trivial and meet the notability requirements. She's actually an interesting figure, it seems, and has been noted for a number of very different roles in her life. - Bilby (talk) 15:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Just to comment about the sources, in case it helps: I think it depends a bit on how you see the Abilene Reporter-News, as they've given her a fair bit of coverage over the last decade. If it counts towards notability then there isn't a problem at all, but if not then we need to look at the others. Of these, PC Week, Network World and Call Centre Magazine all have non-trivial sections where they interview her, but most of the content is in relation to what she's been doing at companies, rather than on her personally. I'm inclined to count them, as they're covering decisions she's made in her roles, but others may vary on this. Less doubtful is one of the Network World articles, as it has non-trival coverage where they also refer to her background, so I'd count this towards notability. The Dallas Morning news article also seems non-trivial and general enough to count as well. Personally, I think there's enough to meet basic notability guidelines before we start including the marginal stuff, and the marginal stuff (local news, mostly) may not count towards notability, but it is enough to limit the dependency on self-published or primary sources. And the more I dig the more I've been finding, mostly because of what she was doing in the mid 90's, which was far more prominent than I expected. I'll keep looking, if only because I'm really enjoying learning about her. - Bilby (talk) 03:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment I do not see that Aristophanes68 has been in any way uncivil in this discussion. His text ("For the past four years, this woman has been the chief operating officer of a global Christian denomination, and she helped create a national anti-discrimination campaign that is still in operation. Moreover, she has had a successful career both as an entrepreneur and as an educational advocate for the state of Texas. I admit that it is difficult to find news items about her apart from the church's official announcements, but I would say that she is presently a significant figure within LGBT Christianity; whether she will stay this way, I cannot tell, but at present she is an internationally known leader") does not appear to be anything other than an argument in favor of keeping the article. Could you please tell us which part of this seems to violate WP:CIVIL? Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Serpentduv typed on User_talk:Aristophanes68 that "I advise you to learn the meaning of the word propaganda." I interpret this (although I certainly may be wrong) as an attack on Aristophanes68's editing that is unhelpful to the discussion. The Squicks (talk) 20:34, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Then I would observe that Serpentduv has not said anything at all uncivil in this discussion either. As a nominator, he or she has expressed an opinion pertaining to Cindi Love, saying that "This person does not meet Wikipedia's noteworthy guidelines". Whatever comments may been made by one person on another person's talk page are irrelevant unless they are repeated here. I would caution all editors to not raise WP:CIVIL within an AfD discussion unless they are responding to comments made during that discussion. Mandsford (talk) 21:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I was going to type something, but then I realized that I could not put it any better than Bilby just did. The Squicks (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait: Looking at the article, it is possible notability could be established but if you take out the self-cites, you have a few isolated local stories: I didn't check which ones were non-trivial but all the sites looked like small town news or stations. Personally I'm big on obscure-but-notable but there needs to be something that has already been noticed by wiki criteria. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 17:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy keep - of course she's notable. Tris2000 (talk) 11:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep per Bilby. The article seems to have plenty of sources. --Alynna (talk) 12:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep She is clearly notable, plenty of mention of her, and an important figure in this movement. DreamFocus 14:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I conclude that she is marginally notable, thus keep. There is enough non-local coverage by independent sources to get over that bar. However, being the executive director of the MCC is not a primary leadership role for the denomination, the denomination being led by a moderator and board of elders that appoints the board of administration, which would then hire administrative staff. Indeed, it appears she was not even on the board of administration, as she held her position with them until May 2009, yet in a document updated April 2009 listing the members of all the church's leadership boards her name does not appear.[99] I conclude that as regards the denomination, she was an employee rather than a leader. GRBerry 21:04, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Panasonic DMP-BD10"}} 132], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Panasonic DMP-BD10"}} 2], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Panasonic DMP-BD10"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Reiteration of techinical aspects from an owners manual, player isn't notable in itself. It may be Panasonic's first blu-ray player, but that in itself isn't notable. Was listed previously in a group listing and no consensus reached, relisting. Ejfetters (talk) 07:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Cornejo"}} 47600], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Cornejo"}} 3032], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Cornejo"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
fails WP:GNG; a single entry in a dictionary of every applicable surname (which is what the ancestry.com page is derived from) is not enough for notability. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge to Surname. The article Surname has an example of a surname formed from a parent's name, but no example for "surname based on a person's geographical origin", which is listed as one of the options in Surname#Formation. Supposing that the information in Cornejo is correct, it could be useful to include a trimmed version of the article as a section in Surname. --CronopioFlotante (talk) 09:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak delete. The topic does not seem particularly notable, making either merge or delete appropriate. The questionable nature of the sources (asserting that the name appears in historical documents?) makes me uncomfortable supporting a merge. I'm therefore leaning toward deletion. Cnilep (talk) 13:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"OPPO BDP-83"}} 19], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"OPPO BDP-83"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"OPPO BDP-83"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Unnotable blu-ray player. The article is just a reiteration of information found in the instruction manual. Doesn't conform to numerous parts of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is Not Was previously listed in a group listing and no consensus reached, relisting Ejfetters (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Samsung BD-P1200"}} 71], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Samsung BD-P1200"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Samsung BD-P1200"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
listed before in group, relisting individually again because no consensus was reached. This player does not appear to have notability to have its own article, as this article is just a collection of material from instruction manuals and original research, fails several aspects of Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is NotEjfetters (talk) 07:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Google search gives only 35.000 hits.Jack007 (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Sony BDP-S1"}} 145], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Sony BDP-S1"}} 7], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Sony BDP-S1"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
unnotable Blu Ray player models, basically advertisement and reiteration of specs found in instruction manual. There are likely thousands of models of Blu Ray players. Unencyclopedic. Ejfetters (talk) 14:11, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
DeleteWP:NOTCATALOG; random Blu-Ray players that don't do anything special aren't notable. —Cybercobra(talk) 18:01, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep BD-P1200 is the first Blu-ray player that has Reon HQV upconverting chip in it. This is a really high-end chip, earlier used only in DVD players and scalers that cost $3,500 to $5,000. Besides that, the article contains links to player compatibility issues, firmware updates and movie playability. This information is scattered over the Net and otherwise would be hard to obtain in one readable and complete chunk. I am planning updating this page with more information on compatibility and playability. See http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=996786 And by the way, there is absolutely no advertising on the page, even if there were, the player is out of production for about a year and a half. -- Mikus (talk) 16:35, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep OPPO BDP-83, it is the company's first Blu-ray player and the first Blu-ray player ever with DVDO scaler. This is huge. Again, like HQV this technology earlier was seen only in $3,000+ price range. This player is a game changer because of technology used in it and because of known dedication of OPPO for compatibility, firmware updates and customer service. I take it, you don't know about this brand. This is a poor videophile's brand, go read about it. Or just wait while someone fills the article with relevant info and THEN read it instead of simply deleting the entry. Mikus (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
"There are likely thousands of models of Blu Ray players." -- You just don't know about this area of technology, why are you keep insisting on deleting these pages? Even now in 2009, there are several dozens of models at best. A year ago there were only 10-20 models. This is a new technology, and pretty much all the early models are notable. Newer models from no-name Chinese manufacturers are not notable. Best-Buy's or Wal-Mart's store brand models are likely not notable, this is a commodity. Mikus (talk) 16:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
The movie compatibility and information you are saying about the Samsung player is not notable. There are millions of movies, listing its compatibility with each one is not encyclopeic, not something you would find in an encyclopedia. This does not conform to WP:NOTDIRECTORY Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:... 5. Sales catalogs, therefore product prices should not be quoted in an article unless they can be sourced and there is a justified reason for their mention. Examples of justified reasons include notable sales of rare collectors items, prices relating to discussion of a price war, and historical discussion of economic inflation. On the other hand, street prices are trivia that can vary widely from place to place and over time. Therefore, articles discussing products currently on sale should not quote street prices. In addition, Wikipedia is not a price guide to be used to compare the prices of competing products, or the prices of a single product across different countries or regions. and 7. A complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight. Also, WP:NOTGUIDE Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:... 1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style, owners manual, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. If you are interested in a "how-to" type of manual, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project, Wikibooks. Furthermore WP:IINFO As explained in the policy introduction, merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Wikipedia articles should not be:... 3. Excessive listing of statistics. Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists. It's all right there, the prices aren't notable, the technology itself may be notable, and therefore should have its own article, not encompasses in articles of products it is being used to, this is not the purpose of those articles, the purpose of those articles would be the players, which aren't notable. There are more than a dozen Blu-Ray players, there are several low-end generic brands, I was just looking today for a new extra one. Telling someone to update their firmware for compatiblity is a "how-to" and Wikipedia isn't a How-to (read above policies posted.) Did all the work, copied and pasted it right there. Ejfetters (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
On one last note cuz I figure it will come up, the change in the price of the technology may be significant enough, but that too should be encompassed in an article for the technology, not the players. The players are cheaper because the technology price has changed, otherwise they would not sell a player at a loss of over $1000. Ejfetters (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
is this a notable entry: TI-30? Oh, right, it says right in the first sentence: "a notable scientific calculator." I suppose I will do the same, just slap a "notable" right into the article intro, problem solved. Mikus (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Akimuddin Gronthagar"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Akimuddin Gronthagar"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Akimuddin Gronthagar"}} 0]
Editor Count: 12 Creator: Sirmao Sur Nominator: DGG
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
I cannot figure out why this library at a primary school with a total of 500 books is notable. DGG ( talk ) 07:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete or redirect to Jaminpur. It doesn't have any credible source for its notability. Also, most of its content is already covered in Jaminpur. Alefbe (talk) 13:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete bizzare article with a major section about an eclipse which I found scarcely relevant. Furthermore, the references all relate to said eclipse and not the supposed subject. Ohconfucius (talk) 14:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Dynamic Infrastructure"}} 687], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Dynamic Infrastructure"}} 382], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Dynamic Infrastructure"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Issues with verifiability, neutrality, tone and other inappropriate content are resolvable problems that have no bearing on a topic's suitability for inclusion. The threshold for inclusion in the encyclopaedia is significant coverage in independent reliable sources, and there is consensus here that this topic has reached that. Skomorokh 14:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
This neologism is not notable, there are serious verifiability issues, little in the way of neutral point of view and it has read like an advert ever since it was created *from an IBM patent and trademark* (per edit logs). With sections like "Need for a holistic approach" and "Benefits of having a dynamic infrastructure" and no discussion whatsoever (beyond a pronouncement from User:Kbrhouse - a SPA created for the purpose of editing this article) it is clear that Wikipedia is being abused as a soapbox. Most problematic though is this edit which removed my dated prod *and* forward-dated two article issues templates (confusing & cleanup) while adding a raft of problematic text. CloudComputing (talk) 07:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It seems that other companies may have been counting on overturning the IBM trademark since googling "Dynamic Infrastructure" -IBM returns 68,500 hits. I assume that terminating the cancelation proceeding for the trademark on 24 August 2009 means that the term is now completely in the hands of IBM. However, the term may still be notable in its own right and deserves some discussion. See WP:PRODUCT. It seems that many vendors are now using the term "Infrastructure 2.0". Perhaps that's a better name for a cleaned up version of the article that might have a section specifically on Dynamic Infrastructure. While I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia, you are throwing a lot of stones at User:Kbrhouse when you seem to have your own SPA issues. Since IBM is pushing Dynamic Infrastructure as part of their Cloud Computing solution, there's a chance that you work for a direct competitor of IBM in this field. If so, it would be a conflict of interest that I think you should disclose when proposing to delete an article related to IBM. Disclaimer: I have never worked for IBM or any Cloud Computing vendor. UncleDouggie (talk) 08:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
And while I appreciate your right to an opinion you are wrong with your accusations and perhaps should try assuming good faith. Discussing an IBM trademark in a generic context makes the article even more problematic and if it is to remain then it should at least explain the trademark situation. CloudComputing (talk) 16:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you on the trademark issue. We should first decide if we want to keep the article under this name, merge it into another IBM product article, or rework it into an article on Infrastructure 2.0. I need to look into it a bit deeper before making a recommendation. UncleDouggie (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
OK, I've looked into it. I think the current article should be moved to Infrastructure 2.0 with a redirect from Next generation data center to it. Both names are already referenced in the first sentence of the article. There are currently no redlinks to either topic. The new Dynamic Infrastructure should redirect to a new section of the moved article that presents the history of the terms, including IBM's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure. I do note that Google shows close to 20M hits for Next generation data center and just over 100K for Infrastructure 2.0. However, it seems to me that any subject containing the words "Next generation" is doomed to have a very short shelf-life in the IT world. With IBM enforcing it's trademark on Dynamic Infrastructure, it's more likely that others will jump on the Infrastructure 2.0 band wagon. I propose that we close this AfD, open a move proposal to Infrastructure 2.0, and then cleanup the article to meet WP standards. Worst-case, the text that you object to could be removed and the article returned much to it's original more NPOV state. We would then still have at least a stub that others can expand on for this important topic as well as an edit history. Given the importance of Infrastructure 2.0/Next generation data center to Cloud Computing, I'm interested to hear your take on this. Can you see two such articles compliment each other, or do you prefer to delete this article outright and bury Infrastructure 2.0 in Cloud Computing somewhere? UncleDouggie (talk) 09:27, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
That's a bit sharp of IBM! I agree that redirects to Infrastructure 2.0 might be best if they have any success enforcing the patent. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep — there seem to be plenty of references and external links, not just IBM, establishing notability. The tone of the article should be improved, but that does not mean it should be deleted. I have improved the references and done a little bit if tidying. More is needed! — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Its the way all the big boys are heading, Im not aware of any serious enterprise class org that isnt at least investigating these models. Granted its not the most notable topic but then recent technologies that arent user facing rarely are, there's enough coverage in the IT press to pass our standards. Fairly inexperienced staff still sometimes move to a position when they'll be working with servers, so theres likely a great many readers that might find the article useful. Im only voting a weak keep as while its well above the typical standard we see from a new user, it will admittedly be challenging to clarify the articles scope and would take a long time to bring up to the quality of say the excellent cloud computing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Brian Von Dusen"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Brian Von Dusen"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Brian Von Dusen"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - Article does not assert notability; google (web, book, scholar, and news) searches turn up no reliable sources to establish notability. GaryColemanFan (talk) 03:52, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Looks like he never really broke into the "major leagues" and a myspace page is not really good supporting documentation. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC).
Delete A journeyman indy wrestler with no claim to notability. Plenty of wrestlers have been in jail and been fired from companies for having a big mouth. GetDumb 02:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Progress"}} 6890000], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Progress"}} 360558], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Progress"}} 0]
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Withdraw"}} 1610000], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Withdraw"}} 68600], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Withdraw"}} 0]
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"NCAA Division I Men's Basketball Conference Players of the Year"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Speedily deleted per author's request. Note that if an editor creates a page by mistake, they can request speedy deletion by placing {{db-author}} on the page without having to go to AfD. Metropolitan90(talk) 05:10, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy delete -- I created this page entirely by accident. I meant to make this the title of a category, not an article. This is a self-nominated AfD, so please get rid of this as soon as possible. Again, my mistake. Thanks. Jrcla2talk 04:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Barbados Group"}} 58], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Barbados Group"}} 107], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Barbados Group"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Nevertheless, the multiple non-independent sources (from various directions -- Michael Jensen/SSRN, Erhard, pop-culture web-sites on Erhard) witness to the existence of the Barbados Group and to its nature. And note the several papers (and references to papers) published by the Barbados Group in Google Scholar: see this search-result list. The emergence of yet another differently-named front for the ideas of W. Erhard may suffice for mention in a wider context in a more general article. Note furthermore that primary sources have their uses -- as the Wikipedia WP:PRIMARY policy says: "a primary source may be used [...] to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge". And since we have to deal with popular culture here, the Wikipedia reliable-source comments on this area may apply : "Articles related to popular culture [...] due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on; [...] When a substantial body of material is available the best material available is acceptable, especially when comments on its reliability are included." -- Pedant17 (talk) 03:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Enough for a brief mention somewhere? Maybe. Enough such that all the questionably sourced material in this article all needs to be kept in some fashion and merged somewhere else, when it is non-notable? No. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete.Merge. NobodyAlmost nobody outside the Barbados Group seems to have paid them the slightest bit of attention. Fences&Windows 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
This appears to be an opinion piece, and self-published at that. Cirt (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Well, well, a reliable source! I did some searching around and didn't come across it myself. I think it does count as a reliable source as the author is enough of an expert on economics. Still, there's not enough attention being paid to them to warrant a separate article, it can be stubbed and merged to one of the Erhard articles. Fences&Windows 08:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Merge per barbados group and cirt.--Judo112 (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"The Maine Edge"}} 15], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"The Maine Edge"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"The Maine Edge"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no "clear" arguments for deletion. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't favor it. I think it outlines a growing trend, and just posted an article that contrasts the free vs. paid debate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eaglesfan215 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep There be enough o' yer WP:RS fer notability. Yar! Chzz ► 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Bassem Rizk"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Bassem Rizk"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Bassem Rizk"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Does not seem to pass WP:MUSIC. There is one outside reference, but it is not clear how reliable that is. The prize mention is unreferenced. The article's creator has repeated removed problem tags without significant changes. Clubmarx (talk) 03:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - The reference doesn't support notability Rirunmot (talk) 02:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. One CD. No indication of how successful. Nothing in Allmusic. Somewhat promotional in tone. --DanielRigal (talk) 01:06, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Omnifarious"}} 111], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Omnifarious"}} 694], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Omnifarious"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Part of the article is a definition, part describes a fictional character. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. None of the other similar fictional characters have their own page. The article has no sources. Clubmarx (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete and redirect to Static Shock. A non-notable character. Joe Chill (talk) 04:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Jagdpanther II"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Jagdpanther II"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Jagdpanther II"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 04:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The primary editor has copied over an infobox from the Jagdpanther article and is adding nonsensical text. He's ignored requests for more information and has blanked the talk page regarding the requests once. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
rewrite since a Jagdpanther II is a Panther II based Jagdpanzer, or just redirect it to Jagdpanther... 76.66.196.139 (talk) 04:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
But there was never any concrete proposal for any such development using the Panther II chassis according to Spielberger's Panther book and Jentz's Jagdpanther book. So any such development seems to be purely post-war speculation and hence not notable. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Appears to be a hoax - a Google search doesn't return any meaningful results: [100]. Nick-D (talk) 01:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete appears not to be based in fact. Buckshot06(prof) 03:46, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above arguments. Google would appear to show that no such tank was created, and no (admittedly limited) cllection of armoured warfare books doesn't highlight any such vehicle either. Skinny87 (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The German language wiki lacks any mention of it. Tangurena (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment The creator of this article appear to have created other articles about German military equipment. Are they equally ficticious? Edward321 (talk) 13:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
He seems to have generally confined himself to only a couple of articles, most of which have been turned into redirects. The 15cm Nebelwerfer 41 article is on a legitimate weapon, but I'd need to check on the info box to see if the data is legit or not. Actually, what I need to do is to write the damn article. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"A million dollar paradox"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"A million dollar paradox"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"A million dollar paradox"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SNOW. Too many issues with this article to avoid deletion. Tone 22:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable theory; all references found in Google are self-published. ...discospinstertalk 02:55, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. If somehow this theory turns out to be notable, it ought to be merged into Solar eclipse as a second choice. --Metropolitan90(talk) 05:16, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, unpublished and based upon faulty logic. (The "position" of the Sun and Moon in the sky is affected by refraction in the exact same way that light is bent in the atmosphere.) Zetawoof(ζ) 07:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Textbook example of original research, and none of it is in the cited links. Zetawoof's refutation of the entire theory is also convincing. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:28, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
DeleteWP:Fringe theory. Also the "million dollar" part not explained, so weird title.Borock (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Totally OR and non-notable. Also nonsense (the analysis assumes that the Sun rotates around the Earth), which wouldn't matter if there were multiple independent reliable sources, but there aren't any. --Lambiam 20:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Tim Alexander (filmmaker)"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Tim Alexander (filmmaker)"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Tim Alexander (filmmaker)"}} 0]
Editor Count: 6 Creator: Chicago Smooth Nominator: Theserialcomma
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
non notable person with limited third party reliable resources to attest to his notability. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
comment the 'references' provided are weak, irrelevant, and mostly blogs. the ones that might be considered third party, reliable sources are not directly about the person, but about a movie he did. there is simply not widespread or independent coverage of the article's subject. the creator of the article has been creating these unnecessary articles of non notable people because these people are somehow related to the original article this person created, which was deleted twice. now he's trying to slide the non-notable/deleted person's name into other articles. Theserialcomma (talk) 02:50, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The film in this article does not seem that notable either. Clubmarx (talk) 02:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Delete though leaning towards delete - I took a look at the existing references list for reliable sources that show evidence of notability. There was one national coverage RS which is a review of the movie and one regional coverage RS which is also a review of the movie. There is no RS coverage of Tim Alexander among the article's references.
"A Male Answer to Waiting to Exhale"NPR Weekend All Things Considered, 2007. Movie review on national media. The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, is not covered in this review though he's quoted twice. The same NPR journalist who did this review also has this snippet/article about the movie.
"KansasCity.com Movie review in regional paper by the paper's professional movie critic.[101] The subject of this AfD, Tim Alexander, has trivial coverage in this review though he mentioned several times in relation to making the movie and is quoted once. The part where he gets covered is the sentence "Alexander — a fashion photographer who has never made a film before."
This is not a delete yet as I don't have time at the moment to go through the Google news and other sources to see if there is other RS coverage that could push at least the movie into notability. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Changed from comment to delete as I only found one RS coverage that could establish notability for Tim Alexander.
No hits in Google Books nor Scholar. Google News finds:
May 18, 2006 The web site is down at the moment but it's in the Google cache. The article is from the Washington Informer which appears to be a regional WP:RS newspaper. The article's author appears to be a regular correspondant.[102] This would be a great WP:N item except that this is an interview rather than an article about the subject. The article's author did not cover the subject himself enough to make this "significant coverage that addresses the subject directly in detail."
Delete - sorry, but local coverage does not confer notability. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Kaguluhan Music Festival"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Kaguluhan Music Festival"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Kaguluhan Music Festival"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus. Skomorokh 02:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The music festival has 3 articles at Pulp Magazine and will be releasing a home video and its logo is copyrighted in the Philippines—Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 11:40, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
The music festival has been established since 2004. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 06:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Even if it existed since 2004, it may not have enough notability to merit extensive coverage. I wasn't able (yet) to verify the references mentioned in Pulp magazine, and then again I'm also unable to verify this from other sources. --- Tito Pao (talk) 11:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Beyond the Friendster and Facebook profiles, this event is not extensively covered by notable media sources (broadsheets, for instance). Starczamora (talk) 09:06, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Because the music festival doesn't need mainstream or extensive media support such as notable media sources that you usually prefer, it has a cult following in the music scene. now if you're not convinced with that why don't you talk to the editor in-cheif of Pulp Magazine for you to find out the impact of the music festival.
It also has been copyrighted by the Intellectual Property office in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Kaguluhan Music Festival need not be mainstream it is an underground music event that is widely known. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 13:09, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I can't blame you for not knowing the music festival, maybe you need to research more than just your usual resources. just because it isn't in the mainstream sources it is not well-known.(talk)
If it's really "widely known" then it may already be considered as having entered the mainstream...how can something be mainstream be not widely known at least, in this context, in the Philippines (if not the world)? And under the Philippines, virtually anything copyrightable can be copyrighted (except for those that should be patented or trade-/service-marked), which includes (but not limited to) musical works, sculptures, speeches...well, even love letters can be copyrighted. That doesn't make them automatically notable. You may want to read up on Wikipedia's policies on notability and reliable sources to guide you. --- Tito Pao (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
The music festival is an "Underground" music event that has a "cult" following in the region of Cavite. A cult-following means it has a strong fan base that need not have the mainstream support because let's face it, mainstream doesn't give a damn at the underground music scene. Now if you're not contended with that kindly contact Pulp Magazine's Editor-in-chief to prove the notability of the music event. We're not putting an article at wikipedia that isn't factual but really it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.104.72.227 (talk) 04:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I could provide you a copy of the three articles courtesy from Pulp Magazine via email for your perusal with regards to the notability of the Kaguluhan music festival and it's entities. (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
Not everything that is factual is automatically eligible to be included on Wikipedia. Nobody contests the facts that, say, the President of the Philippines has guards, but that doesn't mean that all the guards are eligible to have their own Wikipedia article. Nobody also disputes that people were born and die, but that doesn't mean that everyone who has a birthday or who died can have their own Wikipedia article. Wikipedia's guidelines on notability limits the number of articles that may be included in order for Wikipedia to attain a certain standard for articles. --- Tito Pao (talk) 04:47, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
So even an article from Pulp magazine doesn't meet your standards and notability? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:51, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
Isn't a magazine considered a reliable source for information other than the usual broadsheets? (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC).
Usually, yes. But since this article cites just one magazine, we need other sources to verify the information on the article. This is to eliminate the chances of any possible conflict of interest between the subject of the article and those who created or who add content to the articles. Other than Pulp magazine, blogs and message boards, I was unable to find any other third-party reference. (And no, don't give me another blog, it's not allowed either.)
One more thing: Pulp magazine may be a notable magazine (although as of today it doesn't have its own Wikipedia article), but that doesn't mean that everything that gets mentioned on it automatically becomes notable as well. Hindi namamana ang notability, it's not passed on to the magazine's content topics. The notability of a Wikipedia topic is independent of its source material's notability. --- Tito Pao (talk) 05:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
So you're suggesting that the music event needs other articles to get the notable exposure it needs? well then, since the 6th event is going to take place this November 7th, we might as well put an article on a newspaper for your info, though the article isn't as big as you expect like other mainstream concerts in the Philippines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 05:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
I guess it is best to read WP:NOTE, Wikipedia's guideline on notability, especially the section "General notability guideline". It should clarify many of the concerns aired above. — •KvЯt GviЯnЭlБ•Speak! 08:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
So far the only notable reference that we have is our yearly articles from Pulp Magazine. Now if this is what wikipedia's criteria is, then feel free to cast your nomination to delete my 2 articles with regards to the Kaguluhan Music Festival. I couldn't care less anymore, Mainstream media support doesn't care less about the Philippine underground music scene anyways. Besides the music festival's article had a good run since 2007. Megr1124 (talk
Weak keep The fact that the music festival is covered in Pulp (whether or not it is a passing or dominant mention is one that I still cannot answer) is a possible indication of its notability, and is something that we should not discount simply because the article creator cannot provide the articles in question. A brief Google search (which apparently was not present in the entire course of this AfD) says that this event has some 7,300 hits. However, what strikes at me more is the reason for why the nominator nominated this article in the first place, as I remain unconvinced by the simple explanation "non-notable musical event", which to me smacks of systemic bias, when there are mentions in a major music magazine. If it really was that unnotable, then I wonder why this article has been here for so long. --Sky Harbor(talk) 08:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
After much contemplation, I change my vote to keep. To the closing admin: I am under the suspicion that the "delete" vote by the article's creator may have been done under pressure by the original delete votes above, prior to this keep vote. Please take that into consideration when closing this AfD. Thanks! --Sky Harbor(talk) 01:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:44, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep. The fact that this music festival has been covered by Pulp magazine multiple times over sa few years seems to imply that this festival is notable to some degree. I wish there were other more mainstream coverage elsewhere and not just in Pulp, but I see no problem with this article on the festival being retained just as long as the sources are not too primary. --seav (talk) 04:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
To user Seave, Unfortunately the media and or mainstream support couldn't care less about the Independent Pinoy Rock and Metal underground music scene because of too much red tape and bureaucracy, It is also the first time that the music festival's notability is questioned due to lack of other secondary sources when the article has existed since 2007 and merited countless hits on the web. Because of what has transpired, the producers and organizers myself included are planning to release a promo article on the newspaper with regards to the 6th installment and its initial concert film which will be released direct to home video for a limited supply only from its independent label. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Megr1124 (talk • contribs) 19:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait a minute...you're implying that you and the organizers of this music festival know each other and are actually planning to release promo articles for newspapers? --- Tito Pao (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
I have decided to meet the producers and event organizers because of this matter. I've been telling them so much about you with regards to the credibility of Kaguluhan music festival as a music event. They were very upset that the article of the concert film was gone and didn't get to browse it first hand, thanks to you and now this. I actually suggested the idea with them to put up a press release to some newspapers for "your" opinion's sake, Pulp advised however that Kaguluhan's growing popularity is based from an emerging word of mouth from its notable musicians/bands who have previously performed in the festival along with the magazine's support, and contesting it here with you and Wikipedia is just merely a waste of time based from their experiences. You once previously claimed that wikipedia only obtains information from secondary and third party sources, but this I ask: "where do you get the sources of the subject being discussed?" from it's original sources right? so on the contrary; "Notability can also be inherited." Wikipedia cannot promote I am aware of that, but we can however document the subject's progress. Now, whatever transpires in the fate of the notability of Kaguluhan Music Festival and its related articles, the organizers however are very thankful that the festival's recognition in the local underground music scene has already been noticed even in the web (despite that you and Wikipedia strongly deny it) since this article has existed from 2007 meriting with 7,300 hits and still counting. Though I will continue as possible in documenting the music festival's history timeline even if this article still has yet to be resolved. As for my suggestions with the organizers, It's still their decision not mine. So don't ever implicate me of any Conflict of Interest or me influencing them what to do with regards to the subject being questioned here, but they do however commend what I've contributed. --- Megr1124 (talk) 19:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Skomorokh 02:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Neither notable or verifiable. A term used in a single publication in the "Journal of anti-aging" about the journal a "journal" that strains the definition of this word. Zero hits in PubMed, one hit (this "paper") in Google Scholar. The other references in the article do not use this term and unsurprisingly do not relate to this "research". Tim Vickers (talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Oops, I did not see your note on it not being verifiable. I saw the references cited on the article and I imagined it had something to do with the molecular biology of ageing. (surprised that we have no such article, and Evolution of ageing does not seem to have well vetted content)Shyamal (talk) 12:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I hadn't stated that it failed WP:V (I added that after your comment), just discussed the sources. Tim Vickers (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
It's strange that the journal and the author seem to have the same e-mail address, as if the author is also the publisher. The journal is too new to find indicators of trustworthiness like listing in selective services like medline or journal citation reports. Narayanese (talk) 06:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per WP:NEO if nothing else. And the nominator's else is accurate, if understated. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. As as a non-notable, un-verifiableneologism. (The author of the paper is not the Vladimir Stoyanov on whom we currently have an article, but the revision history of that page might be of interest to the idle curious). Qwfp (talk) 11:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC) (…as might that of telomere and ageing) --Qwfp (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Content issues aside (and there are many), the entry is solely based on an article which appeared in a journal of very dubious provenance. All relevant links (e.g., to the Editorial Board) seem to be broken, and it gives an email contact that smacks of a hoax account (zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk). Also, this purported source was the only article in it. Malljaja (talk) 16:56, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete No indication that the the journal that provides the only source is reliable, and signs pointing toward the opposite. Narayanese (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Do NOT Delete.
Dear Wiki members. My name is Vladimir Stoyanov and I have just come back from Cambridge, where in the SENS 4 anti aging annual conference I was giving one of the talks exactly on this novel t-loop deletion factor. The links to the abstract and the talk in Cambridge are included in the actual article. Regarding to the new 2009 online FREE journal of anti aging: you are correct appears that there were some broken links, but this is now fixed. Note however that this is not a commercial journal, which is gathering force on the bases of this year SENS4 conference, where telomere direct targeting was discussed in some more details. Thus please if you have any question regarding the validity of the paper itself, then please contact the editorial board and/or any expert on telomeres. Note however that as a new journal there is still gathering of new papers, which is in a working progress and takes time, especially when a free service is targeted. Regarding the PubMed search: clearly you are not aware, which is ok, but PubMed is an additional submission procedure, which takes upto2 years after the paper has been published, whereas the t-loop deletion factor has been just published. My wish was to keep wikipedia up to date, as I and all members of this conference in Cambridge do believe this paper to be in a great help in understanding aging and focus on the anti aging approach. Thus can you please avoid deletion tags without consulting first. I will put the text back as it was expecting if there are any future questions to address the editor board directly, which is as you have quoted zzz_www_ooo@yahoo.co.uk, which was referred to my used Malljaja (see above) as "smacks of a hoax account", which clearly makes no sense and it is highly unprofessional to use such language. Note that this is an absolutely normal email account using professional speed and configuration for emailing, which is clearly preferable compare to the university email services, which programs are highly simplified and time consuming, which clearly is a knowledge known to the user Mallajaja, which was never contacting this email (as I have checked now with the editorial board).
Why nobody read Volume 12, Supplement 1 ISSN 1549-1684 of the Journal of Rejuvenation Research, which have many Editors: Aubrey de Grey; Michael West, VIlhelm Bohr, Rudolph Tanzi, Gregory Stock and many others world leaders in aging. Thus why don't you just apologise and stop being extremely rood, as you are not suppose to tell me what to do and where to publish! Also just because I am the chief editor, do not mean that I am biased, nor that I have revised my own paper. Why don't you see the many advantages of this new journal, which focus on helping the very particular target of anti aging? Moreover who are you to speculate how many computers there are for a single IP address, and what have this to do with your mission "to promote knowledge". Appears to me that you have forgotten what are you here for. Thus perhaps it is a good idea for you to read the wiki idea and contribute. Note that none of you have any knowledge of anti aging and telomeres, thus you are better use the professional work for the professionals, instead of embarrassing the image of wikipedia. It is pity, as even a bachelor degree BSc (as you) will see the original making sense mechanism, as long as it have a look at the paper. Thus all of you: "how about you actually read the paper?". Further to that I should say that you should be the last people to be even considering to be deleting my contributions, as if you actually read them you will see that I have made only additions to our current knowledge, so that the telomere science community can take advantage of as much info regarding telomeres as possible. Note that PubMed use is most importantly not up to date source, and it is surely not enough for a telomere maintenance ideas, as Maria Blasco is the one managing to induce telomerase in somatic cells, but her problem is that cancer levels also increase in her cells. Thus it is my approach which is the ONLY one who target directly telomere maintenance. Thus I allow for people to look at what helped me to find the telomere maintenance gene, as I wish for more people to work independently on targeting directly this telomere shortening problem.
Now if you don't mind I have work to do, so it will be of great help for everyone, if you put back my additions, as I will not do that for you! I had enough of your childish attitude.
Unfortunately, we have no way of verifying your credentials, so your opinions must be backed by reliable sources. Equally you have no way of verifying that I have a PhD in biochemistry, know quite a lot already about telomeres and the end-replication problem, and did in fact read your paper. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Do not Delete: 08.09.2009 2.46am. Clearly there are many sources of references for this novel t-loop deletion factor. It was also published in the Journal of Rejuvenation Research see page 52. There are more abstracts published by Stoyanov V at this page, which will help you resolve the notable and verifiable sources. Note also that the actual paper is very good and actually really important in the anti aging research.
Delete. We don't have Wikipedia articles about single scientific articles, especially articles that are published in unheard of journals that have only published a single article, especially if the author is Editor-in-Chief of the journal. Vladimir, seriously, that's an untenable conflict of interest. If you want to be taken seriously as an academic you will forget about this "journal" and submit to established journals that conduct independent peer review. PubMed indexing is standard for biomedical journals, and it takes nothing like two years to arrange; it's pretty routine and should be in place before a journal launches. You might be thinking of Medline indexing. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Per the so many good reasons listed above. Wikipedia is not a way to publish research that can't seem to get into any real journals.Fuzbaby (talk) 03:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete As I pointed out at the AfD for Will Vladimir Stoyanov, the IP that Stoyanov is using here is the same IP that is web hosting much of the referencing content. Look at the direct link to the "Journal of Anti-Aging" in that article. It's an individual trying to use WP to publish original thought. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 17:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Nonnotable original research; self promotion. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Suhotra Svami"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Suhotra Svami"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Suhotra Svami"}} 0]
Editor Count: 1 Creator: Gaura79 Nominator: Ism schism
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep He was a prominent religious leader in ISKCON (The Hare Krishna Movement). He was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi and an initiating guru. That makes him notable enough to be on Wikipedia.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Rewrote the article. Every statement is supported by RS now.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment The article is still about a non-notable subject. In addition, the sources do little to add to the subject's notability. Article still deserves a delete. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 00:47, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Suhotra Swami was a member of the Governing Body Commission, a sannyasi, and an initiating guru. I've made some research and found out that presently there're only 22 individuals in ISKCON who occupy those leadership posts at the same time. There are 26 or 27 more who are only sannyasis ang gurus. I think that any individual from this group potentially deserves an article on Wiki. I already gave my arguments on AfD debates on other ISKCON senior leaders. In previous AfD debates several editors presented and supported similar view.--Gaura79 (talk) 10:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 02:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep as a leader of a medium-sized part of a major religion. I've looked through the references in the article and, from the ones that have anything visible through Google Books this one looks like the clincher: a book published by what must be just about the most fundamentalist Catholic university in the world, so would not be expected in any way to try to promote the reputation of a Hindu. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Squeez"}} 1890], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Squeez"}} 891], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Squeez"}} 0]
Editor Count: 14 Creator: 83.221.77.69 Nominator: Joe Chill
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Absolutely no reliable source coverage. --Cybercobra(talk) 22:43, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per above; I can't find significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. ThemFromSpace 03:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
These albums are simply remastered releases of early Selena albums. I have attempted to merge and redirect the articles to the original album only to be reverted on more than one occasion. I still support a redirect of each. There are five volumes in all. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. I was unable to find much in the way of sources, but I think that the albums are still notable however it seems unlikely they can be full content. It's more an editorial issue thatn anything else.Martin Raybourne (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Whether this content should be included in standalone articles or merged is not a deletion issue, and should be handled on the relevant talk pages. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Support redirect. Although I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that this may be handled better on the talk pages, in this case where there have been multiple reversions, deletion is at least a viable possibility, and so I don't have a problem with dealing with this at AfD. Rlendog (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"BVV Trade Fairs Brno Co."}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"BVV Trade Fairs Brno Co."}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"BVV Trade Fairs Brno Co."}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Skomorokh 02:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
falls foul of WP:SPAM as something that is essentially an advert masquerading as an article. Ironholds (talk) 01:12, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Weak keep Seems notable. Needs clean up work. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. At this point in time is reads like an advert. Most of the material relates to events which may in fact be notable, but notability is not inherited. I don't see this passing WP:CORP. Maybe the best is to delete and allow recreation of a sourced article that meets WP:N, WP:CORP and WP:RS. I'll also add that the only linked site for information is not accessible to all browsers making it difficult to meet WP:V for many editors. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:20, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Malinaccier (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Jim Ankan Deka"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Jim Ankan Deka"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Jim Ankan Deka"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Nothing at all in RS to show notability. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 10:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Randy Ellefson"}} 13], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Randy Ellefson"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Randy Ellefson"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Nominator agreed to userfy page.. Ikip (talk) 02:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:36, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
This song was not released as a single, did not chart on any national or significant music charts, has not won significant awards or honors, has not been performed independently by several notable artists, has no reliable sources, does not have enough material to warrant an article and is unlikely to grow beyond a stub article. Aspects (talk) 01:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:35, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - The scope of Archuleta's career is not holistic enough at this point that this level of minutia has significance or relevance to any but a tiny fraction of his fans. Bluecanary99 (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable pornographic film, article consists only of brief plot summary, short cast list, and unsupported claim taken from user comment at IMDB. No assertion of WP:NOTABILITY, no sources, no indication of any independent 3d party coverage, therefore failing the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Film's cast included many notable porn stars, some of whom were doing mainstream work at the same time. Article helps avoid reader confusion by disambiguating Co-Ed Fever (TV series). Added some citations since nomination. Jokestress (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep per sourcing provided by Jokestress. Well done. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 07:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Actually, the sourcing that's been added doesn't demonstrate notability. Aside from a now-deleted link to a retailer site, the citations to the "almanac" and the encyclopedias fail under the applicable notability guideline, WP:NOTFILM, which states that sources like "listings in comprehensive film guides" are not sources satisfying the GNG. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:09, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:NOTFILM. Mentions and trivial coverage in books of trivia and books of lists don't change that. Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources would....but this film doesn't have that. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Meets at least three criteria per WP:NOTFILM
It was shot on 35 mm film and the film had a national theatrical release (see one-sheet).
The film was given a commercial re-release (it has had several re-releases since its film debut, including VHS and at least 2 DVD releases). See re-release 1, re-release 2, re-release 3)
The film features significant involvement (i.e. one of the most important roles in the making of the film) by a notable person and is a major part of his/her career. For instance, controversial figure Paul Barresi appeared in the film as his first straight-market porno following involvement in gay-market modeling and film.
I am happy to provide sourcing in print and online biographies for notable figures who appear in the film. Jokestress (talk) 15:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. Jokestress's comments regarding WP:NOTFILM don't hold water. Neither being shot on 35mm film nor having a theatrical release is listed as a NOTFILM criterion (and neither is even mentioned in the article, to say nothing of being reliably sourced, if that matters here). The links Jokestress provides have nothing to do with a commercial rerelease of the film -- which in NOTFILM refers to theatrical releases, not DVD releases. (The criterion wouldn't make sense if it applied to DVD releases, it would say that the longer it takes a film to appear on DVD, the more notable the film is.) And the third claim isn't supported by reliable sources -- that may be what it says in Barresi's article, but when you check the cited source, the information it's cited for isn't there! The overall GNG problem remains -- the only sources found so that discuss this are the sort characterized as "trivial" by the guideline, not supporting notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment. For an adult film to have a national run at that time was unusual, especially one shot on 35. Most were shot on 16, and some on 8. This was among the last wave of nationally-released narrative pornographic works prior to the straight-to-video market explosion. The multiple re-releases certainly qualify under WP:NOTFILM, which says nothing about theatrical re-release. See General principles, criterion 2, item 3. Furthermore, the adult film industry distribution model changed radically in the five years following the film's original theatrical run. Grindhouse theaters closed across the country as the market moved to video sales and rentals. The fact that this film had three re-releases and is still sold online meets WP:NOTFILM criteria. This featured an ensemble cast of very well-known actors and was made by XRCO Hall of Fame producer Harold Lime and AVN Hall of Fame director Gary Graver. I still believe this article is most helpful for general readers to disambiguate the short-lived TV series of the same name and release date. Jokestress (talk) 16:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
None of the relevant claims you make are reliably sourced information. (Nor is the Harold Lime claim). And your "rerelease" argument is absolute nonsense; it amounts to saying that any film made more than five years before DVDs were available is inherently notable if was later released on DVD. That's flat-out ridiculous. Rather than arguing based on your ideas about what makes a porn film important, please provide what's required by the general notability guideline: "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject."
Delete. Doesn't pass NOTFILM for me per Wolfowitz's arguments. Morbidthoughts (talk) 10:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete fails NOTFILM. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete does not prove with independent reliable sources that it meets WP:NOTFILM. Algébrico (talk) 01:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Sex and the Matrix"}} 17], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Sex and the Matrix"}} 4], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Sex and the Matrix"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Non-notable comedy short. Suggest merge annd redirect to 2000 MTV Movie Awards on which it was origially shown. magnius (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
'Redirect14 news hits you can redirect without a AFD. Ikip (talk) 14:52, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I have to disagree that it's "non-notable", but my reasons are subjective. (In case you're interested, I feel it merges "Sex and the City" and "The Matrix" seamlessly, with high production values and in-character cameos -- it's the best of the shorts I've seen on the MTV Movie Awards.) My real problem is that I don't know how to defend my opinion that something is or is not notable. What would it take to convince you? What would be a "notable" comedy short? ShawnVW (talk) 07:47, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Per WP:Notability: one that has "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". See the page for details. --Cybercobra(talk) 04:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Redirect. Not notable by itself. Darrenhusted (talk) 11:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect as per nom. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Primal Athletes"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Primal Athletes"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Primal Athletes"}} 0]
Editor Count: 0 Creator: ShawnVW Nominator: Who then was a gentleman?
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Neologism, violates WP:NFT. There are no reliable sources for this term. Addition of a redlinked athlete smacks of an attempt at an end run around WP:ATHLETE. Also looks like advertising. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:42, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom, unsourced neologism and yes, advertising just make a delete a certainty Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 11:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Unsourced and reads like nonsense. Ebonyskye (talk) 00:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Potentially All Pairwise RanKings of all possible Alternatives"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 as there is clear consensus that this topic has not passed the threshold of notability. Please feel free to request undeletion if the content can be used fruitfully in other articles. Skomorokh 02:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
non notable ranking method. It springs from a single academic journal article, which isn't enough for inclusion. Ironholds (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect per Abc518. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:05, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
No longer in the article --Abc518 (talk) 13:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, 12 non-Wikipedia Google hits. A redirect of this long term given the complete absence of interest in this system would be inappropriate. I have removed its mention in Pairwise comparison per WP:UNDUE. Abductive (reasoning) 06:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback on the article I wrote ... But I can assure you that this method, which I co-invented, is, although relatively new, a bona fide approach to multi-criteria decision analysis. As such it belongs in a list of such methods at the article "multi-criteria decision analysis", and it needs to be explained (presumably in a linked article). The reference in the article is to an important peer-reviewed journal in the area (in the field of Operations Research). If you are in doubt, have a look at the article. If you cannot easily obtain a full copy, I am happy to email you a PDf. Paulwizard (talk) 21:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Nope. Note "co-invented" and "relatively new"; there is a single journal article on the matter. Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines require multiple independent, reliable, sources giving significant coverage. One reliable source giving significant coverage is not enough, particularly when that journal article is not at all independent of the method's "creator".
Sure, I wrote the article referred to, but the journal in which it appears is independently and blind peer refereed (by experts in the field of multi-criteria decision analysis and the journal's editors). The article was only published (online) last week (after over 2 years spent in the reviewing and editing process). Please note the name of the journal too: Journal of Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis (equivalent to the title of the article at which I added the new method described in the article being discussed here.) Paulwizard (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Doesn't make a difference - the journal article was written by you, who hardly counts as a third party. You're missing the main point; explain how your new method passes WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Basically: Has this method been commented on in at least 2 sources by people who were not involved in its creation? --Cybercobra(talk) 00:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom and Abductive. --Robin (talk) 19:32, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete as lacking third-party sources at this time; could be recreated later once some independent analysis appears. --Cybercobra(talk) 22:14, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Gina LaMarca"}} 14], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Gina LaMarca"}} 5], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Gina LaMarca"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. no consensus after 20 days of discussion on WP:PORNBIO and WP:N. JForget 00:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
No significant coverage and doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 (talk) 10:19, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment I think this deserves a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) to follow up the opinion on wether the recent removal of Penthouse Pets from WP:PORNBIO extends to Pet of the Year. Duffbeerforme (talk) 13:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep - She seems to satisfy the fifth prong of PORNBIO with several mainstream appearances if you believe her.[103] AVN profiles are sometimes unreliable because they mirror wikipedia for some of the profiles but this profile is not one of them. I know I've seen her in some of those roles back in the 90s. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment: I also believe being Penthouse Pet of the Year is a notable award. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Roles like "hooker" and "seductress" don't really look all that notable. Nor does appearing in Penthouse proprietary videos. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:13, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorta related, but why is Playboy Playmate still on PORNBIO is Penthouse Pet was removed? Penthouse is just as well known and notable as Playboy, and Penthouse Pet is their version of the Playboy Playmate. It really should be either both are included or neither are. Keep as being Penthouse Pet of the Year makes her notable. TJSpyke 03:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep : Pet of the Year is notable award, plus several mainstream appearances. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep Penthouse Pet of the Year is notable. There is also other work to add to notability. --Stormbay (talk) 03:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Does not present independent reliable secondary sources (IAFD and AVN, IMDb are not reliable per WP:BIO). Algébrico (talk) 00:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Referenced her PotM in 1993 and PotY 1995 status from the Penthouse website itself. --Cyclopia (talk) 08:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Paolo zampolli"}} 117], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Paolo zampolli"}} 2], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Paolo zampolli"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 20 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
High number of GHits, but mostly associated with Page Six type short blurbs. Probably best know for using high-end fashion models to sell exclusive properties in Manhattan and return of a lost expensive Rolex. No GNEWS of substance. CSD removed by SPA. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb1 (talk) 21:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment - This summary is full of baseless accusations. First of all, Paolo Zampolli is a legitamate businessman who was a pioneer in the fashion modeling business. The comments above related to "using high-end models to sell exclusive properties" was about 0.0001% of Zampolli's business in the fashion industry. The accusation of "CSD removed by SPA" is also baseless as I (Notorious_guy) am not a SPA. I am an Wikipedia user doing as Wikipedia instructs users to do when they see a baseless claim for deletion. Wikipedia ASKS USERS TO DELETE THE TAG!!!! Sometimes the system of tag deletion works and the system of editors policing does not. This is one of those cases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Notorious guy (talk • contribs) 22:31, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Comment – The difficulty of creating an article that is violates WP:COI is it sometimes clouds one's view of the facts. Nothing in the summary is incorrect nor is anything there an accusation. That said, I would focus on showing how this article meets the criteria in WP:BIO, WP:REF, and WP:VERIFY. Without this the article may fail the AfD. My best to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 00:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:56, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Brac Systems"}} 14], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Brac Systems"}} 7], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Brac Systems"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was no consensus with leave to speedy renominate. listed for 14 days with no participation aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Article may not pass WP:ORG. "Significant coverage" is debatable. Coverage is mainly a few trade magazine articles, some minor feature articles which all parrot the same marketing/advertising info, and an appearance on a local television show. Seems to be simply advertising for a small company. Not clear cut enough for a prod, so nominating through a consensus process. Crockspot (talk) 21:05, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Additional note by nom - Many of the ghits for Brac Systems actually refer to two other organizations, Base Realignment and Closure Systems, and Budget Rent A Car Systems. - Crockspot (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"CareerBall"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"CareerBall"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"CareerBall"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Tone 19:37, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Article has exactly 23 google hits - 2 of those from Wikipedia. Other links refer to a book published on scribd and a website with the same name. The book author appears to be the creator of the article. noq (talk) 18:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Questionable notability, has an odor of original research. Crockspot (talk) 20:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:33, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. The title "CareerBall" was apparently coined by the article author for his book, which falls under the category of articles wrongly titled as neologisms. But even the article itself smacks of original research, and doesn't feel rightly encyclopedic. It wouldn't surprise me if it was copied directly from his book, and I don't think it's salvageable. • Anakin(talk) 15:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Thing-Thing"}} 1100], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Thing-Thing"}} 825], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Thing-Thing"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
This game's claim to fame is the "ATi CrossFire People's Choice Award", and a citation to a press release is provided. However, no reliable, independent sources appear to be available and therefore fails basic verification policy - and by extension fails the general notability guideline. The award, which itself has not attracted coverage beyond press releases, it not strong enough to support a article on a whole game series. Marasmusine (talk) 18:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non notable, no sources. - Crockspot (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I can't even find a reference to the actual award; it seems to have been a one-time sponsorship by ATI for some fringe website's awards (not an award from ATI itself), and aside from the press release the website no longer even hosts info about the awards. As far as I'm concerned, it was nothing more than a marketing/publicity gimmick and does not lend any notability to the subject. Therefore, with no other claim to notability, the article should be deleted. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete I found a single about.com review for one of the games, and a small one at that, there's no notability demonstrated in the article and none apparent from a search. Someoneanother 22:17, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Norwegian dub"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Norwegian dub"}} 4], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Norwegian dub"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Contested prod. Music genre with no assertion of notability. No indication of any established band represented. Delete. Blanchardb-Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. No references, and nothing to be found on Google either. Sjakkalle(Check!) 11:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Boomtown Theatre"}} 22], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Boomtown Theatre"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Boomtown Theatre"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
No reliable sources establishing notability, and it is highly unlikely that any will be found for this short-lived local venue. There is (was) no particularly significant coverage in even the local media. The article appears to have been created by the owner, several years ago. Cúchullaint/c 15:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom. Non-notable in any verifiable source, and no sources are provided. N2e (talk) 23:40, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian |talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian |talk-to-me 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Bizsensors"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Bizsensors"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Bizsensors"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - No mentions on Google News (only one mismatch) makes this company unheard of. The website appears to be registered to a person in West Bengal, India but the website itself has no real corporate information such as company registration number. Consequently all we can see of this company is a website with no supporting sources as to its trading status so it may well just be a hangover from a failed speculative stab at marketing.—Ash (talk) 07:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"David Meiswinkle"}} 1], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"David Meiswinkle"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"David Meiswinkle"}} 0]
Editor Count: 4 Creator: NJGlenn Nominator: A Stop at Willoughby
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Does not meet the general notability guideline for inclusion in Wikipedia. The subject, one of ten minor candidates in the 2009 gubernatorial election in New Jersey, does not seem to have any special notability indicated in the article. Several articles are linked to on the page, but only a couple of those seem relevant to the establishment of the subject's notability. The rest (Flickr photos of newspaper articles from the 1990s) seem only to go toward supporting the statement in the article that "his experiences fighting corruption lead [sic] to his political aspirations." Ultimately, this article fails WP:NN and WP:POLITICIAN. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 13:55, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Ixquick"}} 409], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Ixquick"}} 415], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Ixquick"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. This discussion was listed for 16 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. Though an AFD tag for some reason was not placed on the article, the debate was sorted and was listed on the log for 13 days. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:44, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Not notable and written like an ad. 120 million searches in five years, which amounts to less than 100,000 per day. Only other indication of notability is a "EuroPriSe" award, which doesn't seem to itself be notable (supranational government projects aren't automatically notable). May be salvageable if merged e.g. into an article about search privacy. NeonMerlin 15:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian |talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian |talk-to-me 00:20, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak keepA Forbes article devotes a few paragraphs to the site. The site is also discussed in a number of books ([104], [105], [106], etc). There's not really a huge amount to say about it, but I think it's barely notable enough. The current article doesn't seem too bad to me, at least in terms of tone. It would be nice to replace some of the refs from Ixquick itself. Zagalejo^^^ 05:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisting comment. The first relist was 3 days after filing due to the AFD not being transcluded so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Note. The article doesn't have an AFD banner. Pburka (talk) 19:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep - Like above, I found [107] and [108]. I believe google scholar yields a few results too. ceranthor 23:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Sarah Faberge"}} 63], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Sarah Faberge"}} 1], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Sarah Faberge"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 05:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
While she may be notable or, more specifically, a notable person, it isn't clear to me from the article, since it isn't established in the first place that a company's internal division for researching the company's background is notable at large or that, by extension, being one of that internal division's founding members makes one notable. I am particularly moved to have deletion considered because of the creation comment, "Entry reinserted at the request of Sarah Fabergé", which implies that this is a vanity piece rather than an objective article about a notable person. Wikipedia is not for self-promotion; it isn't a place to post your resume. —Largo Plazo (talk) 12:59, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete no evidence of notability, no evidence of third-party, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources. If the company is notable, and ancestors of this person are notable, that does not mean this person is automatically notable. TheSeeker 4Talk 13:34, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Speedy per WP:A7. No assertion of notability, not to mention sources. Gosox5555 (talk) 02:13, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable product. Has only been used by one band, Disturbed (band), for and with whose guitarist the pedal was designed. No non-commercial third-party coverage has been made of this. It is a product which has no significance to music history, and as an effect there's nothing special about it. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:19, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Fails notability. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:28, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: A product that has only been used by one band so it's not independently notable. This is an unlikely redirect. Joe Chill (talk) 03:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"FAB effects"}} 8], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"FAB effects"}} 33], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"FAB effects"}} 0]
Editor Count: 8 Creator: Dream15 Nominator: Conical Johnson
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:06, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable product line from a large manufacturer with its own page. All the important content from this article is already in the Danelectro article. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:12, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non-notable product sums it up. Just being used by someone notable isn't enough.Niteshift36 (talk) 08:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - not notable. Clubmarx (talk) 02:19, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
fails WP:BIO simply being a staff member of a politician doesn't grant automatic notability. yes it can be verified [109] nothing in gnews [110]. LibStar (talk) 07:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, no evidence of notability. Nyttend (talk) 01:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
One of numerous sets of criteria for the diagnosis or exclusion of pulmonary embolism. No evidence of widespread use. Not individually notable. JFW | T@lk 23:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian |talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian |talk-to-me 00:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep but rewrite: PubMed comes up with four different resources [111] and some of the first 80 hits on Google seem more than promising. -- Александр Дмитрий (Alexandr Dmitri) (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JakeWartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Stub and merge to Pulmonary embolism#Diagnosis. This isn't really suitable for a separate page, but it has been talked about enough in medical circles to warrant including briefly in the main article. Fences&Windows 23:39, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
It's all about the acronyms in medicine... PERC. Snappy. Fences&Windows 00:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:38, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"Inprocomm IPN2220"}} 2], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"Inprocomm IPN2220"}} 3], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"Inprocomm IPN2220"}} 0]
Editor Count: 2 Creator: Sergioag Nominator: NetRolller 3D
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable, rare wireless chip having its own page? Come on, not even common ones like the Ralink RT2573 have their own page!
The article also has an advertisement-esque feel to it. NetRolller3D 23:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
Certainly there are many chipsets which are more common. However, this chipset is present in many Acer and Toshiba notebooks, which makes it far from "rare". It is also one of the few wireless chipsets for which no free driver exists. Sergioag (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ascidian |talk-to-me 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment This discussion was not added to a log page but I've listed it now. (see discussion here). ascidian |talk-to-me 00:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete no-notability. Jack007 (talk) 11:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JakeWartenberg 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete - sources do not support notability. pablohablo. 07:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Note to Admin: - the article has never had an AFD tag on it. I have just added the tag. -- Whpq (talk) 16:20, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to Inprocomm. As one of their products, it is mentioned in the company article and provides some vefry basic information. It cannot stand alone as all I can find a repress releases - Whpq (talk) 16:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. slight consensus towards deleting. Article doesn't have any strong refs nor have they been provided. In other words, it appears to be notable for a single event only. Thus, deleting with no prejudice against creation if/when reliable sources are found. tedder (talk) 07:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
Non-notable recycling initiative. No sources support notability. -- Mufka(u)(t)(c) 20:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep Gotta look for them, to find them. Inept nomination; 'power user' does not mean horsepower, but finesse. Incident found with "What links here": Yahoo Search for "Computer+TakeBack+Campaign+plane+banner" and sources for the incident that I added to the article. Anarchangel (talk) 01:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete: A single publicity stunt does not create a notable organization.—Kww(talk) 12:47, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Delete No actual evidence that what they did was important in the recycling movement. DGG ( talk ) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Keep: This is a stub, needing significant updating, expansion and citations, but should not be deleted. The Computer TakeBack Campaign (now the Electronics TakeBack Coalition) is a critically important electronics recycling initiative involving organizations and individuals across North America and having significant impacts on both private sector behavior & public policy. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep. Of notability, although rather low. Plenty of extra ref can be found. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:25, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Weak Keep Seems to be cited frequently in the media regarding electronics recycling. --Cybercobra(talk) 04:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. If DGG has satisfied himself that the article should be deleted, that is good enough for me. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: Of the article's two sources, the second doesn't even mention the group. And while the stunt may have gotten two sentences in an article about Jobs (and btw: an article by the Associated Press is not the same as a press release), that doesn't mean that Apple's actions before and after the stunt can be said to be related. If there's anything sourced and encyclopedic here, move it to Ted Smith (environmentalist). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was Delete. The AFD was closed by YellowMonkey (talk·contribs) who deleted the article at 06:21UTC, September 9, 2009. I am just adding the closing templates and removing subsequent comments. Abecedare (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
A blatant and clear-cut case of POV pushing. The term "Third Sikh Holocaust" gets only 1,600 hits on Google (the first few of which are YouTube videos) and absolutely zero hits on Google Scholar. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 00:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, with no previous good version to which to revert, this is hopelessly in violation of WP:NPOV. Nyttend (talk) 01:42, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Initially I considered whether an article rename would suffice, but reading through the article, it is clear that it is a irremediable piece of soapboxing. Other articles created by the same user Guru Fatha Singh Khalsa (talk·contribs)
I noticed and examined the other two articles, and Google turned up some scholarship on the first two "Sikh holocausts" (which are only called such by partisan sources). A merge into a new article such as Sikh persecution in the 18th century or something along those lines will likely be the end result. We're attempting to rectify the neutrality and title issues separately from this article since those two have the possibility of becoming viable articles whereas this one is irredeemable. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 17:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete Clear case of POV pushing with no reliable source verifiability. Not one hit on gbooks or gscholar (unlikely given the scope of religious studies and ethnic studies at major universities). The only gnews link is a partisan source. Also part of this set of articles was this AfD that resulted in a delete, but one that had similar amount of reference padding to Harbhajan Singh Yogi and had overlapping editors. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 02:58, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete as hopelessly PoV, (as probably are most articles with the title holocaust). Though there does need to be an NPOV article on the many allegations of unprovoked killings of Sikhs during this period. Imc (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Entirely an essay/opinion piece in tone and style. Priyanathtalk 16:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Delete. If this is already covered elsewhere, then I see no reason to keep this article. I would agree that this article is indeed "hopelessly PoV" when it would require a major rewrite to have a more neutral tone and when it seems likely that people would be offended by the idea of a rewrite. NPOV can be done-- the articles on The Holocaust and the Final Solution have done rather well in keeping an encyclopedic tone on an emotionally-charged subject -- but those are the collective work of many editors. Mandsford (talk) 18:45, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Note The existence of other articles is not really relevant in a deletion discussion per WP:OTHERCRAPTeamQuaternion (talk) 00:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. I forgot I was reading an encyclopedia whilst reading this. It seemed more like Sikh propaganda. Cream147Shout at me for doing wrong 22:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete per nom - clearly POV pushing. Nick-D (talk) 23:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Keep I am picking this article as my keeper of the day. I noticed that it has plenty of sources, well over 100, and I am not exactly sure what makes it so point of view. It may well have a few lines within it that are point of view, but there is no reason that these problems could not in theory be fixed. Point of view problems are considered a rather poor reason for deleting an article. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfDThe topic of the article is certainly notable and verifiable. I am not Sikh or Indian, so I don't really have a dog in the fight here as far as the political agenda. Deletion seems to be a very coercive way of dealing with content and an author, when discussion and rewriting seem to be more of the answer, I am going to check the discussion page, to see if these issues have even been discussed. Seems like this should have been done before the article was nominated.TeamQuaternion (talk) 02:50, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I think I already fixed the text you are talking about in one spot, if it is stated elsewhere I can fix that one as well. Even more glaring is that the Sikh figures of casualties (40,000 to 60,000) are stated as being fact, now that has been changed to Sikh sources claim... Body counts offered by the Indian government are now the only places were there are point of view problems, because last time I checked these body count statistics were listed as undisputed facts. BTW just about every problem in the article can be fixed by simply inserting Sikh's claim into the mix, because when this is done, the whole article becomes completely verifiable because I have looked into it, and just about everything in the article is consistently given in Sikh accounts. It is a very accurate reflection of the Sikh point of view, its problem being that it states these points of view as indisputable facts. Some of the wording can be changed to a more neutral tone as well, but if point of fact the Sikhs did have a disperportionate casualty rate in that conflict so the article in that respect is factually correct. Thanks for pointing out that problem, but the thing is that I am not really sure we have made a good faith effort to discuss with the author and try and fix all the point of view problems with the article. For this reason alone the nomination should fail as it is in clear violation of WP:BEFORETeamQuaternion (talk) 23:09, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong keep or userfy very, very well sourced. It can be reworked and rewritten into a decent article. Ikip (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rename and rewrite -- This is a substantial and well-sourced article, but with a POV title and perhaps some POV content . The primary subject is an internal conflict between the Sikh community and the Indian government. It is clearly written from a Sikh POV, but I see no evidence of a holocaust in the sense applied to the Jewish holocasut in WWII. The first pertion deals with pre-1984 Sikh grievances: I am not clear as to their relevance. The long paragraphs on the principal participants do not belong: the WP method of dealing with the need for these is to provide a short paragraph with a "main" template linking to the bio-article on the person. I do not know whether there is another articles on the subject to merge this with. If there is not, it should be given a series of tags, indicating the problems with it. It is a great pity when a substantial article such as this is deleted when what it needs is pruning, converting to NPOV, and generally sorting out. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Rename, rewrite and merge with 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and Punjab insurgency: "Third Sikh Holocaust" may be an OR. Other OR too: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom (1984) is vaguely analogous to the attack in Amritsar. Heavy one-sided POV. Inappropriate tone, like personal POV essay:"The situation has changed some since the terrible days of Indira Gandhi. A Sikh is now Prime Minister of India and Sikh culture and commentary is readily available worldwide on the internet. But Punjab remains without a capital, many farmers without adequate water, and India remains a country of great hope, great challenges and great illusions.As the motto of the Indian republic says, Satyameva Jayate – “Truth Alone Shall Triumph”." BUT BENEATH THE POV, LAY BURIED SOME WELL-REFERENCED FACTS. Khushwant Singh for eg. is a very notable author. " Oxford University Press", University of Pennsylvania Press are noatble publishers. --RedtigerxyzTalk 16:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment (I already voted to keep), some people in this discussion may have a big advantage over me, because before I looked at this ADF proposal I did not know anything about this history. Ghallooghaaraa is the Sikh word for Holocaust, or so the article claims. This should be verified by checking with a Sikh English dictionary, but the factual nature of the article is not really being challenged. The author has verified this with a citation to a Sikh English dictionary, giving the exact page number where it is stated that Ghallooghaaraa is literally translated as holocaust. It would seem to me that the Sikh name for the event is an appropriate title, for an in depth coverage of these events from a Sikh point of view. The article documents with well over 160 sources and growing the verifiable and notable point of view of the Sikh community on the history of these events. There is really nothing wrong with an in depth article on a point of view, especially a notable one, as long as it says that it is from the Sikh point of view. As I see it, if the so called neutral articles mentioned don't provide some degree of coverage to the Sikh point of view, and link to this article, then the real problem is with the neutrality of these articles and not with this article on the Sikh point of view. A problem with merging the entire article with 160 citations into a main article with only 26 citations, including all the facts documented in the sources would be that then the main neutral article would become out of balance containing many more cited sources that support the Sikh point of view.TeamQuaternion (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
I believe you will have to read through all of the 160 citations first, and ensure that they are not being quoted or referred to selectively or out of context. Best of luck. Imc (talk) 19:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Strong Delete while i sympathize with anyone who would like to rescue poorly written articles, and i have attempted to rescue some myself, i really cannot imagine this article passing deletion review with a "hey, why not just clean up". i believe in eventualism, but i also think articles need to stand as they are, maybe poorly sourced, maybe incomplete, but overall encyclopedic. this is so poorly written and pov, it needs to go. whoever wants to rescue it, please, just copy it to your sandbox and rewrite, and then recreate under a different name. i admit the references look good, but that may be all thats salvageable. the world can wait for this to be rewritten.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
NoteAs per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD a point of view problem is an extremely poor reason to place an ADF tag on an article and a much better approach is to improve the article. I have fixed a few of the more glaring style errors in the article and plan of fixing a few more, so since many of the WP:NPOV problems have been fixed, maybe the key issue is that this article is very verifiable as per guidline WP:V with 160 citations and also very notable as per WP:N, seems like nobody has disputed these facts, and since this is not a vote this ADF should be rejected.TeamQuaternion(talk) 00:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Normally, I would agree with you. Even an article as slanted as this one can usually be redeemed with enough elbow grease. But that is not the case here. The events this article describes are already covered in our articles about the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, Operation Blue Star and the Punjab insurgency, thus rendering a rewrite unnecessarily redundant. Most importantly, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is a shock term intended to conjure images of Nazi concentration camps and fascist crackdowns. When we use the word "Holocaust" to name the events in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s, or when we use the term "genocide" to name the events in Rwanda in 1993-1994, we do so not as a rallying cry against racism or crimes against humanity but because that's what they are called by neutral and unbiased scholars and historians. Even neo-Nazis call the Holocaust "the Holocaust". As near as I can tell, the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" is not used by any scholar, not even in one of the 130+ citations provided by the article's author. The only usages other than this article where I have found the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" come from Sikh websites railing against the crimes this article describes. That is hardly a neutral basis for such a complex topic. As such, we should move the salvageable content into the three articles I linked earlier and delete the remaining POV-filled detritus. --Hemlock Martinis (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Note OK just a guess here, but my guess is that some of my older Jewish relatives would find this stuff extremely offensive, and think it was trivializing the holocaust. Also I am sure that Hindu people are not happy about being compared to Nazis? By the same token check out this link"
My point being that an article on the Sikh point of view about the events of 1984 should not be stated as fact, but it should exist, because the fact that elements within the Sikh community use rhetoric like this is a verifiable fact. What is debated in an ADF is the topic of an article. I agree that it should be mentioned that this is an emotionally charged term used by only members on one side of the account.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
See also WP:POVFORK, WP:FRINGE. The only reference for the term "Third Holocaust" (ref 1) is a dictionary that says Ghalooghara translates to Holocaust or a few other words. The article clearly fails reliable source verifiability for its core. While there are some RS refs included, they aren't germane to the title, rather they contribute to a synthesis, putting forward this fringe theory. That Wikipedia is not a soapbox is another policy vio. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 16:35, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment-point of view fork issue{{User wikipedia/WikiDragon}} Deleting an article based on it having a point of view problems is one of the worst arguments for deletion I can think of. Probably the very worst example of an WP:OTHERCRAP argument is to try and justify deleting an article based on a claim that it is a point of view fork. This topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V it has over 160 references some of them from very reputable and non-partisan sources. That is not really nice of you to call the Sikhs that don't agree with Indian main stream media a fringe group, but even if they are, they are certainly a notable fringe group. Basically a point of view fork argument is that since some allegedly non-bias other article does not provide sufficient coverage of a subject, then an in depth coverage of the same topic needs to be deleted. Nonsense, lets stick to the issue and forget about WP:OTHERCRAP, better yet, since you have now awakened a sleeping dragon, I am headed right over to the article you claim is so unbias, and add in all the references that people suggest should be merged into that article, and place a link to the main article on the point of view expressed by some Sikhs. The sad thing is that this will mean that over 160 references are going to probably start to toggle in and out of that article. At least that will thwart your plan to get this content out of wikipedia edit history, unless people next advocating that article as well. Anyway, everybody please try and calm down and have a nice day. I believe that many of you are men of good faith who just disagree with the point of view of some of the Sikhs, but I don't think it is reasonable to exclude it. The other good news, is that all of the named point of view problems with the article have now been fixed. Making a sweeping claim about an article having a point of view fork problem is a fallacy under WP:JUSTAPOLICY in this case because it really does not apply when two articles are bias, and also fails by WP:ONLYESSAY. Also I think in an argument we need to say if we are Sikh Hindu or other. I have been clicking and visiting a lot of user pages, and there are many Hindus or at least Indian nationals. Me I am mostly Irish and German with some Jewish relatives as well. I have nothing personally against either Hindus or Sikhs and did not know anything about this issue until I clicked into it because I monitor articles for deletion.TeamQuaternion (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
You would be better off understanding Wikipedia policies including those on reliable sources before you go on arguing about the 160 references. The fact that the only reliable sources in those 160 don't support the concept of a holocaust is the main point here. -SpacemanSpiffCalvin‡Hobbes 03:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
commentUser:SpacemanSpiff I notice you are a native Hindi speaker, nothing wrong with that, but people should name their partisanship in these types of heated discussions. The notable fact is what the Sikhs are claiming something. You make a great point, that their point of view is disputed. I agree that this fact should be included in the article. However the fact that they are making these claims is a little harder to dispute, my own research verifies that they are making these claimsWP:IKNOWIT/WP:JUSTAand that stating something I know to be a fact is not relevant and not really appropriate here, because they are a result of my recent inquiry into the subject. My lack of understanding of guides is not really relevant per WP:ADHOM, but thank you for the advice.TeamQuaternion (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete, rescope to discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" in the apparently unlikely event that there is sufficient material - there seems no need for the content of this article to focus on the events of 1984, since we have extensive (and hopefully rather better) coverage of that elsewhere. Discussion of the term "Third Sikh Holocaust" itself also belongs in those other articles. However, if that discussion of the term becomes too extensive, then this article location would be (possibly minus the "1984") the wisest choice for a sub-article on the term to be branched out. The current situations appears to me to be an unacceptable POV-fork. TheGrappler (talk) 01:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete This article is a POV version of another well written and more neutral article:[1984 anti-Sikh riots]. --Deepak D'Souza 03:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 05:22, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Mint Records). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 00:08, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Carosello). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW(Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Google news: [http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q={{urlencode:"The Queen Is Amanda - Platinum Edition"}} 0], Google books: [http://books.google.com/books?q=%2B{{urlencode:"The Queen Is Amanda - Platinum Edition"}} 0], Google scholar: [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?&q={{urlencode:"The Queen Is Amanda - Platinum Edition"}} 0]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 23:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (NAR/Edel Music Italy). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 18:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Non-charting compilation albums are almost never notable. ReverendWayne (talk) 03:41, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 21:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Brought to you by the Article Rescue Squadron
