Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 25

< 24 February	26 February >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yugoslav University Debate Network

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-Notiable student debating club - has been AfD before see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yugo Deb Net - on a Google search top 2 hits are WP, the third links to a page with no ref to them, the fourth mentions them in passing and the fifth is to a list of NGO's. No GNews hits, no Google Books hits, no Google Scholar hits. No coverage outside debate results pages in the form of "Jo Blogs from Yugoslav University Debate Network" - even there own website is dead. Not sure that the page meets WP:V let alone WP:GNG or WP:ORG or WP:CLUB Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete Probable hoax. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Pischia Tennis Championships

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HOAX and fails WP:V. I can't find anything related to this 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships on Google. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User:Domonik has also created 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Women's Singles, 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Men's Singles, 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Men's Doubles & 2010 Pischia Tennis Championships – Women's Doubles. This AfD entry and User:Sebiku are also somehow related to this user. Arteyu ? _{Blame it on me !} 00:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian humour music

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not really a genre. There is no history, No development. Seems to try to just lump together every comedian that uses music and is australian into one category. 100% original research essay. Ridernyc (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just seems fishy. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:OR. WWGB (talk) 07:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maxime Brulein

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Article lacks references and support for statements. ttonyb (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. (GregJackP (talk) 00:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Keep the article has numerous references to articles, interviews, IMD pages and official film festival pages. MrDirector (talk) 03:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, per WP:ARTIST, he does not meet the criteria for notability. Also, IMDb pages are not considered notable coverage, see WP:NF. The same with the film festival pages. (GregJackP (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Comment and written articles and interviews by respected journalists are not considered notable coverage? MrDirector (talk) 03:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see only one article that might fall into "non-trivial" coverage - that would be the French language interview. Unfortunately, the overall coverage for the individual is not substantial enough to support notability. As pointed out above, the IMDB references do not meet the criteria for reliable sources. ttonyb (talk) 06:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and userfy if requested. With respects to MrDirector, written articles and interviews in reliable sources are indeed worth considering... but so far I was only able to find the French one. If you can show articles that are not in blogs or in self-published websites, they would be welcome. Also, the claim of being a criticaly acclaimed director for his many short films also needs to be confirmed, as that would go far in meeting the notability requirements of Wikipedia. They need not all be in English. Any more French or Belgium sources to be found? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of App Store applications (Science)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a completely subjective list of mostly or entirely non-notable apps for the iPhone. There are countless applications, and simply listing a handful you think might relate to science in some way isn't encyclopedic. -- Atama頭 23:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Atama頭 23:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete WP:NOTCATALOG. --Cybercobra (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE - Ahunt (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see no value here. There is no indication of notability, no useful content, and no apparent selection criteria. —Roguelazer (talk) 02:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as prodder. Wikipedia is neither a price list nor a catalog. I found this as I was checking out the deletion discussion for its redirect List of App Store applications - do I see a speedy deletion of dependent page coming? B.Wind (talk) 04:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - I don't see how this is particularly encyclopaedic but I'm not that bothered either way. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 10:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Why does there need to be an article on Science Apps, most of which are about as notable as a news story about someone going to the shops to buy milk? PerthMod (talk) 10:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the redirect discussion is here -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 11:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SNOW delete per above. Pcap ping 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Salonpas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Prod contested on the grounds of the number of Google hits. While that is true, most of those hits are from primary sources and resellers. Google News, however, comes up empty, and Google Scholar shows several trivial mentions of this drug in medical papers and a few false positives. Much of the article is a coatrack article regarding the drug maker's reaction to an FDA ruling. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Factual correction. Google News in fact comes up far from empty, so I would urge anyone commenting here to check out the search results linked above rather than take the nominator's word at face value. I would also point out that the WP:PROD was not contested on the basis of the number of Google web search hits, but on the content of the much more relevant Google Books, Google Scholar and Google News archive hits. Phil Bridger (talk) 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I stand corrected about Google News, my search string was just "Salonpas", not the one linked to by the above template. Lots of false positives, though. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Of the many G News hits, about 3/4 are relevant, and of these, very few are truly significant. But the OTC article [1] gives the basic information reliably. The miscellaneous GNews hits are enough to show the product is in widespread use. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am convinced that this is a notable health product, based on personal experience (its available at numerous different pharmacies), and any lack of adequate sources or evidence of excessive coverage of trivial details in this article can be overcome. This may be trimmed, but should stay.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:35, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would be inclined, at this point, to withdraw my nomination based on an IAR acknowledgement that the number of trivial mentions of this drug in Google Scholar is enough to confer notability. Notability guidelines are just that - guidelines - and occasionally there are situations that warrant ignoring them. But personal experience and availability in drugstores do not confer notability per se. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 17:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree, i guess i just want to indicate that there is an indication of strong evidence for notability which can then be researched. thanks for using g scholar. confession: i often forget to use this search.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but clean up and consider moving to a generic name. The current article contains borderline advert and a good bit of coatrack (see "Salonpas FDA approval and current monograph status"). That said, deletion is not for clean-up. I would suggest rewriting and moving the article to a generic discussion of transdermal analgesics. Although Salonpas is currently the only such patch sold in the USA, it is far from the only company making and selling similar patches around the world. Cnilep (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Smoking Blues

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bootleg per WP:MUSIC with one unreliable source. Any meaningful content can be merged into Unreleased_Pink_Floyd#Live_at_Montreux_Casino, which is itself a bit ropey. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no mergeable content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 09:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Obscurity (album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable bootleg, one unreliable source. The notability claims in this article (e.g. the length of one of the songs) do not constitute notability per WP:MUSIC. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, no mergeable content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well kept article with a lot of sources popping up if you actually googled it. Str8cash (talk) 23:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Prove it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nota bene: [2] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:VERIFY and WP:GNG. I'm a Pink Floyd fan, but there's no evidence this album has received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources. Would be very happy to be proven wrong on this one, but I couldn't find anything myself. — Satori Son 14:54, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete without prejudice towards a recreation based on independent, reliable sources if/when those are available. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suresh Murugan

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Probable autobiography. References sourcing facts about the topic all lead to unreliable sources. Contested PROD. Amalthea 22:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: The sources are published and reliable in my opinion. Minima c (talk) 15:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not really a matter of opinion. Can you point out the sources that are both reliable and cover the topic in detail, as asked for by WP:N? I don't see any. Artistsites.org certainly isn't reliable, but user-generated content as far as I can tell. And the other three sources don't mention the topic. Amalthea 19:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the current mess of a BLP. None of the sources are reliable - they are user-made or press releases. The text is so badly mangled as to require a complete rewrite. Based on my ultimate Google search, I doubt this can be sourced at all with English language sources. Every time I eliminated a false term, the number of Ghits went down dramatically. What was left was a bunch of directory listings, many obviously not this person. Otherwise, userfy and fix it. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while it is a good thing to try to counteract the pro-Western hemisphere bias in Wikipedia, the sources in the current article do not serve to show that the subject meets WP:ENTERTAINER. --bonadea contributions talk 10:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Špejbls Helprs

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable tribute act. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability in the article; the only link or references is to the band's own website. I can find nothing on google apart from myspace, blogs, etc, so unless there is stuff I have missed this group fails WP:BAND. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

34 Greening

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about not notable student residence that cannot be speedily deleted under current CSD. No assertion of notability, other than they use the word "notable" in the article. G-hits do not show any National Register type reference. Some would delete this perhaps as total nonsense, but not sure of the temperature of those particular waters these days. It reads like the creation of a group of frat boys seeking some hint of significance as their school days draw to a close. Dloh cierekim 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC) Dloh cierekim 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It appears to be an essay of someone's personal view about their dorm building and they posted it to Wikipedia instead of their blog. I can't find any coverage on this building.--Oakshade (talk) 02:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I have nothing to add that hasn't been said. It doesn't seem to make WP:NOTE. When there was a Speedy Delete Tag on the article, I asked for the reasoning behind the hangon tag on the article's Talk Page, but never got a response. --Avic enna sis 06:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. No evidence of notability, not even an assertion of notability. Sounds vaguely like an essay I wrote about my dorm room years ago. That one wasn't notable either.--SPhilbrick T 21:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you nailed it-- an essay for am English comp class. Dloh cierekim 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy close. Redirects are discussed at WP:RFD. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 22:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Windows Rot (2nd nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose a delete of redirect page Windows Rot. Target page does not describe/qualify Windows Rot and nothing links (WhatLinksHere) to Windows Rot. 1st AfD in January 2009 ended in a majority for delete (4 votes); 2 voted keep, but article need source; 2 voted redirect, yet the page was redirected which was against consensus. Meewam (talk) 21:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JohnCD (talk) 09:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meile Rockefeller

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was an unsourced BLP and I've added a source to deal with that problem, but I don't think Ms. Rockefeller meets the criteria of the general notability guideline. She's mentioned in a couple of 1980s stories about real estate, and her biggest press splash came when she was arrested for protesting the Rockefeller Drug Laws. It's one incident and I don't think that's sufficient to warrant an article, and obviously her notability is not inherited from her more famous relatives. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge I think she's notable enough, but if not how about merging into the Rockefeller drug laws article? Her protesting arrest is the main source of her notability, so please at least merge if not keep. Vampyrecat (talk) 01:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A merge was actually my first thought, but that article is pretty short (lots of organizations have organized against the Rockefeller laws and we should really have a whole section on opposing/protesting them) so it may not work. Still I'm definitely open to that possibility, particularly if we can expand the target article, but I'm fairly convinced she should not have her own article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited, retrieve whatever content is relevant to past it elsewhere (where it is relevant). -RobertMel (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @952 · 21:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - seems to be enough ghits about her campain contributions, real estate, and arrest to be notable. Gtstricky^{Talk or C} 22:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If her real estate work is sufficient to get a short NYT article, and a discussion in another, and her activism enough to get a long one, then she is notable. There are also of course articles in other NY newspapers. DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources appear to make the bar. --Joe Decker (talk) 00:52, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. The subject passes the letter of the notability guidelines, but I can't help thinking that an article on any subject with equivalent coverage in, say, Tehran or Tianjin would not be treated so favourably. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I didn't expect my point to be confirmed quite so quickly, but reading down a few articles in the daily AfD log I found Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mona Lisa Brookshire, a discussion about a subject who seems to have roughly equivalent notability to Meile Rockefeller but hasn't attracted the same kind of support. This isn't an "other stuff exists" argument, but a plea for consistency between Western subjects and those from the developing world. I would invite those commenting here to consider why this article is heading for a "keep", but that one is heading for a "delete". Phil Bridger (talk) 22:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not much good faith in that paragraph of yours. maybe specific and non-trivial mentions in the NY Times made the difference compared to a puff piece on an ideal date. You may be hung up on birth locations but please don't project that opinion onto others. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 22:46, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The article has been renamed Refsnes Gods. JohnCD (talk) 22:49, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Refnes

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is about a non-notable hotel in Norway. (The article's title is actually spellt wrong - it should read Refsnes - with an extra "s".) I can't find any sources that support the notability of the hotel or the building itself. Online hits are almost all either advertising for the hotel or trivial (blogs, etc). Wikipeterproject (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - hmmm, not sure about notability of hotels, but there's an entry for the hotel here (with the alt. spelling of Refsnes Gods which actually seems to be the more common) which calls it "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo", and it also appears that the hotel is sometimes used for international conferences. (see google books link here. So assuming hotels are notable if they get mentioned in travel guides, I guess this one might be notable. Gatoclass (talk) 03:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to Keep. Given that the hotel dates to 1767, I think it would be notable just as an historic building alone. Gatoclass (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User: Gatoclass. Frommer's, presumably a reliable source, says that it is "the most elegant resort in the environs of Oslo." That by itself should satisfy any notability concerns. --Pink Bull 00:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I moved the article to the more appropriate name, per the above discussion. --Pink Bull 00:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to its historic values, it's a notable private art gallery. Three of its Munch holdings were stolen in 2005. Both are now noted in the article and cited to independent sources. Novickas (talk) 16:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dayanand N. Naik

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Except his two books in Statistics, google scholar report is below expectation for WP:PROF . The books are not popular textbooks outside. No breakthrough work or awards. Dayanand N. Naik a.k.a D. N. Naik fails to meet WP:PROF kaeiou (talk) 23:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does one evaluate whether a given textbook is widely used, in the context of WP:PROF? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:11, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Good question - those numbers shown in Google are low for good books. Also who are in that academia may know. --kaeiou (talk) 01:26, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 21:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I think the books are more in the way of user's manuals than textbooks, and that most of the citations carry the meaning "I used the SAS software to do the data analysis for this research and I need something to cite that's about SAS" rather than demonstrating any actual impact of Naik's own work. That is, SAS is notable but I don't think its user manual is. As for Naik's own research, I see one paper with 75 citations and then it rapidly drops off; I don't think this is enough for WP:PROF #1. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per David Eppstein's analysis. Pcap ping 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. From GS link in article I find cites of 246, 157, 73, 25... h index = 9. Not quite enough. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]
- Comment 246 and 157 are for his books. Thx.--kaeiou (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

comment I just wanted to make it clear to users what these numbers are. Nothing perticular. thx--kaeiou (talk) 12:35, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 22:58, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Add 'em Up

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only sources are Golden-road.net, a fansite deemed non-notable. No other sources found, absolutely no individual notability. Last AFD was part of a bundle which claimed no prejudice to relisting separatey. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on unsourced & original research mentioned above. Article fails notability guidelines and first page of Google search results only lists links to fansites, YouTube and unrelated pages. Sottolacqua (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just needs more sources.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 02:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]

Delete. Another one I'd like to keep, but I can't find any sources that pass muster. The question isn't if the article is sourced, but whether it is sourceable - and if sources don't exist, they don't exist. The list of games provides some information, and that'll have to do for now. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3 Strikes (pricing game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely no sources found anywhere besides fansites. I removed an WP:OR section on "possible" cheaters. Last AFD was part of a bundle which closed as keep with no prejudice against renomination. Since the individual pricing games' articles are of varying quality, I think a smaller-scale renomination is in order. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on unsourced trivia & original research mentioned above. Article fails notability guidelines and is not significantly covered in other media. First page of Google search results only lists links to fansites, YouTube and other video sharing sites. Also, Inclusion is not an indicator of validity, notability, or quality and article subject is adequately covered in List of The Price Is Right pricing games. Sottolacqua (talk) 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd love to keep it, but I can't find the sources to do so. I'm surprised there aren't more books about the pricing games, given the show's history. I might try a more in-depth search later on. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is seriously original research and also fails notability guidelines. Also, there are no reliable sources to cover this article. Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, crufty OR. Hairhorn (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete as blatant original research. However I also recreated it as a redirect to C.O.P.S._(animated_TV_series)#Minor_supporting_characters on the off chance that somebody might actually search for this one day. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Buttons McBoomBoom

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable, unsourced minor cartoon character from the 80s. Wikipedia is not a fansite.

<del> — as nom; it's wp:plot and wp:or. Jack Merridew 19:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 19:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep or merge to parent article which is only 12 kb long anyway. There will be commentary out there. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge the article has insufficient reliable third persons info to demonstrate notability. Dwanyewest (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an article about a minor character from a minor 80s cartoon series, "sourced" entirely from a handful of youtube videos. It's inherently original research. Reyk _YO! 22:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Ranking System

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails...well, everything. WP:N and WP:V to start. Couldn't find any reliable sources that addressed it. Using "universal ranking system" and "martial arts" on Google, I mostly got returns where someone wrote "there is no universal ranking system...". Of course Wikipedia and mirrors. In short, I'm tempted to call it a hoax. Aside from the 2 edits creating this article, the author has a coherent talk page edit in another article, so I'll AGF and not call it a hoax. Trying to search by the founders name is a fools errand. Aside from the 2 colleges of the same name, there are 18 Robert/Bob Morris articles on Wikipedia alone (none of which are this guy). Tagged for no refeences and notability for nearly a year. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice - not an easy term to search, but if it really does exist, and someone can produce real sources, try again.--SPhilbrick T 21:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete No reliable sources. Searches find either statements saying there is no universal ranking system in martial arts or discussion boards advocating a universal ranking system for MMA. Search for creator and system together produce only wikipedia/mirrors. Papaursa (talk) 01:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page has been blanked as a courtesy.

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mayukha

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Prod reason "All this may be true, but it is not notable" Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia isn't a dictionary or even a baby name meaning as this is.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 19:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not nearly enough for an article about a given name; just a dictionary definition and some numerological hokum. Favonian (talk) 23:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yes, !votes from a "random IP" are taken into account, depending on the strength of the argument advanced. "There are no sources" is a better argument for delete than "It actually exists" is for keep. JohnCD (talk) 23:12, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magic Cube (video game)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No citations, no indication of why this game is of real-world importance to include on Wikipedia, page has been orphaned for a year ~QuasiAbstract {talk/contrib} 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the game actually exists Str8cash (talk) 23:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [3] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Just because a game is unlicensed doesn't mean it's not notable. Pirated games that are notable in the gaming community are just as important as Final Fantasy IV or Chrono Trigger. GVnayR (talk) 19:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while being game being pirated does not mean that an article cannot meet the notaibilty guidlines the fact that there are no sources whatsoever is another story. If this game is seen as important as the other two games listed it should not be hard to find several soucres covering it.--76.69.171.174 (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Do Deletes count if it's from a random IP? Str8cash (talk) 03:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "It exists" is not enough to qualify for an article. Notability amongst the gaming community is not relevant. The article does not demonstrate where the game has had significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Marasmusine (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as insufficiently notable. Per the WP:GNG, a subject must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources." — Satori Son 14:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lemar's 5th Studio Album

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, removed without explanation. Original deletion proposal by Disolveinarow (talk · contribs) because "Not an album yet released". Prod endorsed by myself for the following reason:

Per WP:NSONGS: "Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. For example, a future album whose article is titled "(Artist)'s Next Album" and consists solely of blog or fan forum speculation about possible titles, or songs that might be on the album, is a WP:CRYSTAL violation and should be discussed only in the artist's article, and even then only if there is some verifiable information about it."

A few changes have been made since the deletion proposal but they don't seem to address the concerns. Adambro (talk) 17:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - way too early for a WP article, as sources cannot even agree on what year the album will be released. The nominator is correct about WP: SONGS, also applicable are WP: CRYSTAL and WP: HAMMER. The editors behind this article should realize that there is nothing wrong with exercising patience until the album becomes a reality. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's waaaaay too early. Plus, with the usual things that I look for in this type of page - i.e. tracklisting, name and release date - all missing, bring on the ~~wall~~ hammer!!! DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too early per WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 20:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This album doesn't even have a title, that there is enough for deletion; aside from that, two contradicting release dates within the article, no track listing and very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lots of hammering these days. Shadowjams (talk) 08:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above. This fails WP:NALBUMS; WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER apply. Gongshow ^Talk 20:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Grove School (London)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

For lack of notability. A Google-search for the school only gives hits on database like listings of schools and the school's own website. I propose Chestnut Grove School gets deleted along with it, since that disambiguation will then not link to anything. TheFreeloader (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 19:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This school exists, articles are written about it, and information is easy to find about it. The sources found on Google News (not to mention google books and elsewhere not so FUTONable) are certainly enough to meet WP:GNG. tedder (talk) 20:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - firstly it is a high school and I support the arguments for keeping high schools at WP:NHS. Secondly, there are several claims for notability; it is the first Arts College in England and was described by Ofsted as "Chestnut Grove School is an outstanding school.", assessed as Grade 1, the highest designation for a UK high school.[4] and there are plenty of sources from which the page can be expanded. Sure it is a sub-stub at present but the way forward is to expand it; always much harder than proposing deletion, but infinitely better for the development of the encyclopaedia. TerriersFan (talk) 02:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have a well established practice of keeping all High school articles. The rationale has been said before: since 95% are notable if people look hard enough, it's not worth the trouble to bother discussing the others, and simpler to keep them all. DGG ( talk ) 04:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, like DGG says. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anjing banfa

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy was declined since the art doesn't fit any of the CSD categories. Fails WP:MANOTE and WP:N in general. Zero gnews returns. Gbooks got 1 return, a "who's who in california". It had 1400 ghits, marked by a lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Mostly either stuff connected to him or blog entries. Article appears to be promotional in nature, being written by an author using the name of the founder, as their only wikipedia edit. Niteshift36 (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:SNOW. Completely promotional and fails all reasonable searches to even begin a listing of WP:V and WP:RS. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete CobaltBlueTony said it one line advert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 12:41, February 25, 2010
Speedy delete no assertion of notability. Appears to be self promotional. jmcw (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steelers–Ravens rivalry

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one rarther poor refs to justify it being a notable rivalry. BUC (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are many rivalry articles such as the yankees-red sox and michigan-ohio st. ones. No reason to delete this page. Str8cash (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [5] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Str8cash may be someone's sockpuppet, but he is correct. The article can still be improved and does not need to be deleted. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not a sockpuppet lol, where'd that come from? Str8cash (talk) 06:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently the IP after your response believes you are + the fact that you started your contributions at AFD with aknowledge simply much higher than most starters, I don't think it is a stretch to say you've been to Wikipedia before (perhaps under an IP address? another name?). To be honest, as long as you aren't banned/indef blocked/doing a good hand/bad hand account swap, I really could care less. And that's my point: your POV is accurate and you aren't being disruptive. — BQZip01 — ^talk 20:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh alright, i understand. Every once in a while i come to the Afd page to help out, i didn't mean to do anything wrong as the IP Address person says, haha.Str8cash (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is one of football's best and most notable rivalries. ~ Richmond96 t • c 02:01, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: Any divisional rivalry is notable Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 06:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can use better sources? Why not simply tag the article? A lack of something so readily available is no reason to nominate for delete... its a reason to improve the article. Some of the availabe souces include AFC North, USA Today, LA Times, KTVU, Baltimore Sun, ESPN, Denver Post, and a few others. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: This is a legitimate rivalry and a legitimate topic for WP coverage. I agree that the article itself could be improved, but that's no reason to delete it.— DeeJayK (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Valeri Lilov

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nomination. Article was prodded by Glenfarclas (talk · contribs) but author's talk page comment indicates that deletion is not uncontroversial. Prod rationale was "Non-notable youth chess player who does not meet WP:BIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources."

I am neutral. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reason I stated in my PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 17:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:GNG (references provided by article's author are neither independent nor significant coverage); and not notable for having IM norms: we have articles for well under 10% of even full IMs. —Korath (Talk) 21:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO. Edited only by a WP:SPA, so smacks of self-promotion. Pcap ping 05:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will Gilchrist

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a biographical article is about an athlete in the British Universities American Football League, which I don't believe satisfies WP:ATHLETE. He supposedly will be drafted to the NFL in 2010, but this claim, and the entire article, is unsourced. A Google search turns up no hits that demonstrate this athlete meets our notability guidelines. PDCook (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A Google search only yields profile and statistics pages. I do not find any articles or secondary sources that suggests the player is notable, hence he does not meat WP:BIO. He has not played a game at the highest level of his sport so he does not meat WP:Athlete. I would also like to add that whether he gets drafted or not is irrelevant, as he has to actually play a game to be considered notable under WP:Athlete, at least based on my interpretation of that section. MATThematical (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't mean to suggest that being drafted would satisfy WP:ATHLETE. I only mentioned it because it was the closest thing to any assertion of notability in the article. PDCook (talk) 01:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Per the nomination, fails WP:ATHLETE and nothing sugests he meets any other potential notability criteria. PackerMania (talk) 02:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Based on a search of the NewsBank database, as a supplement to the google search by MATThematical, I found no non-trivial coverage of this player. Cbl62 (talk) 07:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, technically requested by an original author; but I have taken the liberty of moving the page to User:Liouxsie/Disingenuous Twaddle in case it should ever get the sort of needed coverage to become notable, or just because it's an editor's personal project and interest. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous Twaddle

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable in the slightest.

Delete. Note that this is about an experimental language and art magazine... created in 2010... Lord knows, it does seem that we are awash in disengenuous twaddle at times, but this article is not about that. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.Methinks the creators are also removing the delete tags from the article itself. Sigh.... 86.2.118.52 (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Camuscando (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't a vote, it's a discussion of reasons to keep or delete, so you need to explain why -- Boing! said Zebedee 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if the page is inappropriate, but reserve a space for when it is. Liouxsie (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notablity not established by coverage in other publications, but if it is then recreate article. Kitfoxxe (talk) 18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ if the page is inappropriate, but reserve a space for when it is. Liouxsie (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noted; I indented and struck your second Delete comment; since this isn't a vote, one such comment is sufficient. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would hope that it followed in the footsteps of L=A=N=G=U=A=G=E rather than in the vein. Still, a monthly paper copy - gives them two issues. Hardly enough for notability. Especially as there appears to be no content yet. I quote from 21 Feb 2010: "The really good stuff will go up on this blog, the really, REALLY good stuff will be published in the first issue of a soon-to-be-regular zine! Made out of real paper!" I've been through the site and can find no more than begging for stuff to be sent. Sorry, guys. When you get some actual stuff to show, or fix the page so people can find the content - it might be just me that's missing great quantities of twaddle - and can reference it other than from a blog, forum, etc, then come back. Till then, remember - Wikipedia is not for promotion. Good luck with it, anyway. I might send you something - but not as Peridon (talk) 18:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. I agree that an article may become appropriate if the publication eventually becomes notable; as it stands, though, the article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before this gets unnecessarily lengthy: all comments appreciated, both constructive and negative. It was a shameless (though harmless) act of self-publicity and I apologise. Can't blame us - someone needs to be there to enjoy the material when it goes up (it's for our peers' benefit, and if they achieve even a little recognition, it's a worthwhile venture - this isn't begging for personal gain). Whoever is able to delete the thing, please go ahead and kill it before our tender spirits are well and truly obliterated. The creator, Liouxsie (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Concession (webcomic)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable subject lacking reliable sources. It didn't even receive any awards from the fandom it narrowly aims at. Weissbaer (talk) 13:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unfortunately. I hate to see such a long and decently written article deleted, but it is simply not notable. All of the sources are similar, the only really notable one being cracked.com, which probably doesn't count since it's a satire website anyway. It's received no awards for anything, and the only media coverage seems to be the article on cracked (where, in fact, the comic is made fun of) and a panel at Anthrocon. While Anthrocon is notable, considering it has a Wikipedia article, I don't think that's enough to save it. I'm really on the fence about this article, and I feel bad voting delete on three articles who are covered by a WikiProject I'm a part of in just as many days, but rules are rules. I may change to keep if others post convincing information. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 15:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete - I personally do not think the page should be deleted yet, yes the comic may be up for an award shortly with the Ursa Majors, but even so, exactly how much notability in required? I realize the commentary on cracked.com wasn't exactly a favorable review, but it is an outside source of sorts and is referenced correctly, Concession does receive criticism for what its about, and should count as a reference nonetheless. Immelmann himself has worked on the Further Confusion con book, making himself more notable as published in the book itself, and as Baron said, Concession was featured in a panel for Anthrocon 2009. I honestly think that should be taken into consideration to being notable enough. Not to mention the comic has spawned two spin-off projects, both of which have been ongoing for over a year each, and the comic hosts its own server for all three of these projects, as well as a few others that needed hosting. I'm not saying the comic couldn't be more notable, but I think the references I've provided so far should be enough to keep the article from deletion, not every topic given an article on Wikipedia has earned awards. DarkMask (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First off, let me start by saying that I do not consider the Anthrocon panel notable. Anyone can run a panel at Anthrocon, so long as it is approved by staff. Meaning, someone completely un-notable may be running it, which makes it's inclusion as proof kind of iffy in my eyes. Anyone can run a panel about anything. Someone talking about something at a non-business convention doesn't really make something notable.

Furthermore, WP:WEB, which applies to this article, being a webcomic... well, it fails all three categories. It has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial sources (the only one in the article is Cracked, and being a satire site who was merely making fun of the comic, I'm not sure that even applies). It hasn't won a major award (yes, it may win one eventually, but it has not won one - one could argue that Ursa Major isn't well-known, as well, even if it did win), and the content is not distributed via a media that is not controlled by the owners.

I realize the comic hosts it's own server, but that is actually a negative per WP:WEB notability rules, since it is owned by the creator of the comic in question. Hosting other things does not matter, since all of the other things it hosts are just as non-notable as Concession is. Besides, all of this is invalid - the article is about Concession the webcomic, not the server Concession is hosted on. ~ Baron Von Yiffington ^. _talk ^. _contribs 16:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this webcomic. Joe Chill (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources found. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:08, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for trying at least. DarkMask (talk) 06:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete: At least not yet. It depends or not it wins the Ursa Major. Should it win, that's definitely something notable. Webwyre (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC) — Webwyre (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete and Userfy Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. One award does not necessarily establish notability. What kind of coverage will winning that award generate? --Bejnar (talk) 01:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SaaS integration

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has multiple issues - it's not verifiably notable, constitutes almost 100% original research and does not accurately reflect the subject (which is anyway generic and typically refers to services e.g. consulting), all of which are no doubt due to the conflict of interest that arises from the authors' company's flagship product being "SaaS integration" software. It was previously nominated for deletion exactly a year ago and barely survived with "no consensus", in part due to a "weak keep" vote from me, but as it has not improved and is flat out misleading I'm running with Strong Delete today. -- samj _in ^out 14:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreadable hash of vague glittering generalities that seems likely aimed at selling something: A business objective is focused on the creation of accurate, consistent and transparent information flows. Saas integration emphasizes flexibility, agility and responsiveness. It is concerned with how the capability is integrated into business applications as well as how it is passed along from one business process to another. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of WP:NOTE, lack of WP:RS separate from the mass of WP:OR. Reads like an infomercial, not an encyclopaedia article. Verbal chat 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is one among many written by a single author with probable conflict of interest, and its wording has too much of an advertising slant.—Tetracube (talk) 03:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Complete BBC Sessions

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources, inappropriate tone. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's an album that was never released (it's getting on for 2 years since it was apparently planned for release), and has no release date planned. The BBC radio sessions might themselves be notable (I have no idea), but until there's some sign of the album seeing the light of day, I don't think it's notable. -- Boing! said Zebedee 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I created the article in anticipation of the album being released at some point. It doesn't look as if it's likely to be released any time soon (the band members have moved on to new projects) so I'm not going to raise any major objections ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photoshop Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability. Google shows no signs of significant coverage by reliable sources necessary to meet the notability requirements for web content. PROD and notability tags were removed by the author without explanation. Rankiri (talk) 13:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources, and it's borderline spam. -- Whpq (talk) 17:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colours of the Rainbow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

doesn't seem to meet WP:NSONGS (sidenote: article creator may be a sockpuppet of brexx - Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Brexx Alan - talk 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough sources, didn't chart, digital-only release. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mwangi Mukami

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This admirable individual does not meet Wikipedia's notability criteria. The only thing close to independent third-party coverage about him is a non-news video piece in the NYT. That piece (I reviewed it in its entirety) doesn't give any details of the subject whatsoever--it is more along the lines of an interview. None of the other sources cited amounts to significant third-party coverage, either, nor was I able to identify any after good faith news, web, and book searches. ^Bongo_matic 06:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he and his work were recognised by the Georgia General Assembly (see [6]). I guess this is the political equivalent of a bronze medal or an Booker prize nomination, making him notable. - TB (talk) 15:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't a notable award. One way this can be demonstrated is that it wasn't noted—not in any newspapers that can be searched in the Google archives, not in any newspapers that can be searched in Factiva, and not in the Atlanta Constitution. More generally, this isn't the sort of recognition that is subject to senate debate, gubernatorial approval, or any other sort of rigorous vetting. This sort of thing generally comes at the request of a constituent or the direct attention of an individual who happens to serve in the state legislature. ^Bongo_matic 16:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(More discussion between Bongomatic and myself on the subject here - TB (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP, his national status and recognition by the US embassy and other organisations is enough. I'll add that the article needs a fair bit of work and better referencing. This should be undertaken soon. (Milestokilo (talk) 13:17, 15 February 2010 (UTC)) — Milestokilo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
NOTE, the article creator should come back and start doing the references and tidy up sooner than later. Thanks (Milestokilo (talk) 13:20, 15 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 23:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Will very possibly be notable in active life, at which time in which there can be an article DGG ( talk ) 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JohnCD (talk) 23:07, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sharon Taylor (businesswoman)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This BLP appears to fail notability using WP:AUTHOR as I find no significant published works using google. She may be a well established professional, however based on publications I only see co-authored books that do not appear to be a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work. There may be a basis of notability if she is widely cited by her peers but I have found insufficient evidence for those grounds though a number of press releases and articles derivative of press releases can be found on GNews. Ash (talk) 12:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Ash (talk) 12:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm not seeing a particularly strong claim of notability (or viable sources) here either. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:03, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources. Jujutacular ^T · C 01:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete as G12 Copyvio. Article deleted at 12:52, 26 February 2010 by Lectonar. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Component of environment

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This just seems to pulling together a random collection of stuff about environmental issues from other sources. I found one part of it here, and another part here (doc). The title is nonsense too - if there is anything of value here, which I really doubt, it should be added to the relevant Wikipedia articles. -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I suspect that this is a copy-and-paste straight from a high school term paper. Or maybe college. Adds nothing to any existing school of environmentalism or coverage of known issues and problems. Maybe some of the text here could be added to existing articles on environmental issues. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep Sufficiently sourced Mike Cline (talk) 02:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ninjatō

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

After nearly six years, this article still lacks any reference to reliable sources to collaborate any of the fictional claims it poses as fact, and even after a merge there appears to be no interest in finding any. Binarywraith (talk) 12:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Once all of the original research has been removed, there is nothing left. --DAJF (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: There does seem to be quite a lot of stuff out there about this, eg - [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. There does seem to be some disagreement about how much is genuine and how much is Hollywood fiction, and I'm not sure how notable those sources are (though plenty of people seem to sell the things). I've only gone for a weak keep based on those doubts. -- Boing! said Zebedee 14:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keeep. Reliable sources? So hard to find, supposedly? OK. I present you for example this article Black Belt (btw the magazine article needs to be completely rewritten, it's a mess) or this whole book (no prevew avaible) or this fragment from a novel by Stephen K. Hayes or this and [13] and this and this fragments from some non-fiction books. And so on, just a few examples - but I guess this is enough? You guys (Binarywraith & DAJF) are just REALLY bad at research.You should be ashamed of yourself as you are apparently claiming to be na wannabe encyclopedia editors or something. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 17:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and tell me what did you mean by "fictional claims it poses as fact", and what are your sources for this. --79.162.148.194 (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My intent was to note that the claims the article makes, while within the ideas presented for fictional ninja in media, are not substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon. If you have good sources, please do add them! Binarywraith (talk) 19:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So I just showed you it is in fact "substantiated by any reliable source as attributes of a historical weapon". What now? Oh and about "how much is Hollywood fiction" - Hollywood has nothing to do with this. If anything it would be "how much is Japanese popular culture fiction/myth/folklore". Maybe. --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, why won't you check out the Japanese Wikipedia article on the subject and how is this constructed? --79.162.142.22 (talk) 21:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have looked fairly briefly at the references provided by the anonymous editor above (excluding the one which is not available online). While I have not read every word of every one of them, I cannot immediately see that they support many of the statements in the article. If they do then perhaps the anonymous editor (or someone else) can point out just where the sources confirm what statements in the article. As for the sources given by Boing! said Zebedee, only a couple of them look reliable to me, and, far from confirming the content of the article, several of them actually contradict it, and suggest that the whole popular notion of Ninjato is largely mythical. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. — Janggeom (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep disagree with nominator, per sources given above. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable subject per sources given above, including an entire black belt mag. article on it and frequent mentions in other Ninja-related works. It's true that sorting out how much is legend and how much is fact is not easy here but that's why an encyclopedia entry for it based on principles of neutrality, verifiability, no original research, and reliance on reliable sources will be useful: It's a common enough term that someone might want to get a better idea on what's fact and fiction. JJL (talk) 18:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many things have one face in the historical world and another in fiction. The fictional reality is not any less by being fictional. --Bejnar (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven - 80's Band

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources are provided and I cannot find anything about this band at all. Would consider this a speedy deletion candidate but there is some assertion of importance (notable band members). Quantpole (talk) 12:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources at all. Str8cash (talk) 23:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [14] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note The above note headed "Nota bene" has been added by the same anonymous editor to several AfDs that Str8cash has contributed to. The link simply shows some of Str8cash's edit history, indicating that he/she has contributed to a number of AfD discussions. I do not know what the point is meant to be. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

Delete The band did exist. It was formed just for the John Peel session mentioned in the article, and never did anything else. After extensive searching the only source I have located is this one. By no stretch of imagination can this be considered to satisfy Wikipedia's notability criteria. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely Delete. sorry it's a no-brainer. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a scratch band whose entire career comprised one radio session is not notable, no matter who its members were -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:CSD#A7 no credible claim of significance or importance JohnCD (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tómas Davíð

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable per WP:MUSICBIO, unreferenced, nearly zero coverage online and none from WP:Reliable sources. Started out as what looked like a hoax page with minor edits to a paste of Jón Þór Birgisson, but even with the Sigur Ros stuff removed non-notability remains. Speedy deletion repeatedly contested by creator and anonymous IP editor. MuffledThud (talk) 11:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The anonymous IP editor has stated in this edit that he/she is Tómas Davíð's manager, and also that the article has been created with the express purpose of being used for promotion. In the edit summary to this edit, the creator of the article (Listarmadur) states that he is Tómas Davíð's manager. This is entirely consistent with the impression I had already formed that they were one and the same. I feel sympathy for someone who comes new to Wikipedia, puts a lot of work into creating an article without being aware of our policies, and then finds their work being deleted. Nevertheless, unfortunately the article has, as I said, been created with the express purpose of promotion, and is inconsistent with our policies. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - preferably speedy delete There is no evidence of notability or significance, either in the article or found on searching. Since speedy deletion tags have, as stated above, been repeatedly removed by the author (including the IP, who states in effect he is the same person) there is no reason why it should not be speedily-deleted. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have spent a considerable amount of time searching for sources on Tómas Davíð. It took some effort, as both names are common in Iceland, so some effort was required to avoid references to other people called Tómas Davíð, and it was also necessary to bypass Google's default behaviour of accepting "David" instead of "Davíð". The end result was that I found nothing at which could possibly relate to this Tómas Davíð except for his pages on social networking sites. Surprisingly, even those pages did not describe him as being a musician, or indeed repeat any of the claims made in the article. I have come to the conclusion that the most likely explanation is that MuffledThud was right in seeing the original version of the article as a hoax, probably written by Tómas Davíð, and based on very minor editing of Jón Þór Birgisson. The original article even contained a picture of Jón Þór Birgisson, wrongly captioned as being Tómas Davíð, and followed the article Jón Þór Birgisson in numerous details. When the article was tagged for speedy deletion some rapid editing took place to make it look more plausible. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable on the face of it. The article does assert significance, however, the refactoring of information mentioned above leads me to believe this is a hoax and thus vandalism. Would love to hear from the article creator as to my information about the subject was changed, apparently to improve plausibility. Dloh cierekim 15:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted A7 - no assertion of (or likelihood of there being) notability -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of eternity

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This was tagged incorrectly as "no content" and therefore speedy was declined. Should in my opinion, have been A7-not notable (How could they be after 3 days???) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inktel Direct

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

List of awards does not establish WP:N but precludes WP:CSD#A7. References are pretty much all about the awards. -Zeus-^u|c 22:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment page moved to correct capitalization just after this AfD was opened. DES ^(talk) 22:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep seems sufficiently, although not hugely, notable. i have added some text and a number of refs since this was nominated. Many more refs are behind paywalls, at least twice as many as I have cited. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Given that the nominator put this up for AfD very shortly after I had declined an A7 Speedy that he placed, I question the amount of WP:BEFORE work that he did on this article. DES ^(talk) 23:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did do some legwork. I looked through the provided references as they were, and they all seemed to be template pages or press releases - nothing significant. The most notable source I found was a sentance in the Miami Daily Business Review, and that was only in passing on an article about economic recovery. -Zeus-^u|c 04:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is my view, perhaps not universally shared, that when the prime issue is notability, a nominator ought to make a good faith attempt to actually find sources not in the current article. Given that I found and added 7 citeable refs, all via basic google searches, well...

In any case what do you think of the article with the refs I have added? DES ^(talk) 11:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only one I find close to WP:RS is the Miami Business Review, and I don't think that's enough to establish WP:N. Any company is bound to be mentioned in some magazines or papers, but I don't see any of these refs (or awards) as establishing notability per WP:CORP. -Zeus-^u|c 22:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lebanese Premier League. Though different guidelines have been cited for why these articles should be deleted or redirected, the principle behind the comments is essentially the same - that the information contained within the articles does not in most cases exceed what is found in the parent article. The intention of the creator was reasonable, and appropriate and guideline compliant articles may be created at some point in the future; it is just that at the moment there is not enough material to make it worthwhile. See Wikipedia:Summary style for discussion on when it is appropriate to split out a sub-article from a parent. SilkTork *^YES! 11:55, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lebanese Premier League 1996–97

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This nomination includes 37 articles in full. The list is below. There is a relevant discussion at ANI here.

In total this user created about 396 articles. I'm only nominating this set of 37, all of the same type for now. If appropriate, the rest can be dealt with in turn.

As for the pages, they have no prose. They consist of "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League." They have a corresponding template and a "reference" which is an external link to the championship listings. They are a classic example of WP:NOTDIRECTORY and also WP:NOT#STATS.

Perhaps if they were integrated together they would be useful, but as a massive set of articles they are not particularly useful. There's also no indication from the creator that they are going to improve these articles. The bot spam indicates a lot of unreferenced BLP notes, and they have yet to respond on their talk page. Shadowjams (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was having a conversation with another user a few days ago about the state of the Cambodian League season articles, which are exactly the same as these and I was also considering putting them up for deletion. -- Big Dom 08:59, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As a question of curiosity, were those created by the same user (or this user)? The creator of this set of articles did the ~400 articles all in one stretch (they're still unpatrolled in the patrol log), but I know they did others in the past. Shadowjams (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This problem could be a LOT worse than we imagined; it appears that this user has created almost 4000 league season articles, many of them with very little context or content. [15] -- Big Dom 12:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a profesional competition. No reason for coverage of individual years per WP:CONTENTFORK. A list article could deal with all of these events and redirects are completely unecessary. E.g. who is going to miss Lebanese Premier League 1936–37. Obviously Lebanese Premier League would remain. Best interests of wikipedia to have concentrated detailled and referenced coverage. Polargeo (talk) 10:57, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I confess that I did not look at every single article on this list, but of the ones I checked, there was no information that was not otherwise in the Lebanese Premier League main article. If they all have the same source, why could not they all be covered in one article? How do we establish the notability of Lebanese Premier League 1937–38 separate from Lebanese Premier League? Separate articles do not presently provide added value to the user. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 13:58, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, with option for speedy of rest on precedent. Seems to be nothing more than lists of statistics - that is not what we're for. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 17:24, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, BUT... First of all, the articles created by User:Nameless User should be deleted because they do not have any meaningful content and further do not satisfy any of the de facto guidelines of WP:FOOTY task force WP:SEASONS. This would probably make them eligible for speedy deletion under "No meaningful content" as well. However, I strongly oppose that WP:CONTENTFORK, WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:NOT#STATS are brought up as arguments, because this would basically mean that articles such as 2009–10 Premier League and, ultimately, everything under the auspices of said task force would have no right whatsoever to exist, as well as countless MLB, NFL, NASCAR or whatever sports seasons. Do you really want to delete those as well? --Soccer-holic^{I hear voices in my head...} 14:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - The difference between 2009–10 Premier League and this article (and others like it) is that the Premier League article is a real article. It has a full lead, sections and descriptions, pictures, etc. Within three days of its creation it had all of those features. Even early on there were indications that this would happen. I agree, we have to be careful about Not Stats, but if those specific stats articles are only stats, and not valid forks, they ought to have a look at them. I don't believe there are many examples of the articles you talk about with those problems. Shadowjams (talk) 16:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep League tables by season for national leagues are surely notable, and as soccer-holic mentions above, there are numerous examples already of these in Wikipedia. Shadowjams responds by saying that they are not proper articles without a lead, but if so they can be improved and thus are not suitable candidates for deletion. I would be happy to assist in improving the articles - will other respondents here help? Eldumpo (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came across over 1000 articles on new page patrol that were all about two weeks old and not fleshed out in the least. These are not apparently national teams, they were mostly on other obscure leagues in assorted cities, mostly across Asia, but other places as well. I question if any of these are notable at all, but even if they are, rather than thousands of separate articles, these could be merged into single articles for each community, with all years combined. Montanabw^(talk) 04:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "I question if any of these are notable at all" - your analysis makes it sound like these are no-mark sandlot leagues, which is not the case at all, the articles under discussion relate to the equivalent of the NFL or MLB in their country. The league is certainly very notable. The question of whether articles with so little content should be kept is a different matter..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:44, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at the moment, the articles have just standings, but there is nothing preventing further expansion. This is an acceptable starting point. And yes, it's important to remember that this is the top division in a country. The issue is that the articles lack prose at this point, which doesn't seem like a good enough reason for deletion. matt91486 (talk) 06:21, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all I see no reason for this to be treated differently than summaries of the seasons of any other sports league. So long as it refers to a reliable source-- and the RSSSF archive site is a source for a lot of our soccer data-- then it should be kept. Sports articles have a lower threshold to clear on Wikipedia. In many cases, they start out with little more than a table, as was the case of the articles on the individual National Football League seasons (for example, [16]), and they grow from there. I think that it is cause for concern if we see 396 or 1,000 articles being created in a two week period, and that we do need to delete those that fall in the category of "obscure leagues in assorted cities" (described above), and. In the case of the Lebanese Premier League, it's the highest level sports league in the nation of Lebanon, so I can't count that as obscure. Mandsford (talk) 14:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford, who pretty much sums up my position. I don't know about the other articles from this user, but the league in Lebanon is sufficiently notable to justify these articles. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't expect you to look at all of the articles, but for example take a look at this one. "Statistics of Lebanese Premier League in the 1955/1956 season.
Racing won the championship."

And that's it. Does this meet even the supposedly lower threshold of sports articles? I also think the notion that a specific segment of articles has a lower threshold for some unspoken reason is simply wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that the nomination was for all the articles, regardless of whether they had content or not. It's questionable whether anyone will ever find information for the seasons prior to 1991, beyond what would be included in a single list of year-by-year champions. However, the entire nomination was based on deleting all the articles as a matter of policy, regardless of content. From an encyclopedic standpoint, I would agree that the double standard for Wikipedia articles probably is simply wrong, but it's no secret that entertainment (sports, TV, film) gets treated differently than academics (science, history, politics). Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep with time and work done, this article can be brought to standards. Str8cash (talk) 23:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [17] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't seem realistic or likely. This set only includes 37, but the full extent of these types of articles is at least 400, maybe closer to 1,000 when you consider the above. That's a remarkable number of articles that have little to no real content. That's exactly the meaning of WP:DIRECTORY. Shadowjams (talk) 02:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CONTENTFORK. Individual articles are not needed, as the main article, Lebanese Premier League, already contains all that is in these separate stubs. Consider redirecting the said pages to the main one. The same goes for the other 300+ articles; merge any (probably not much) content into the main article and redirect or delete. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The league page you reference does not have all the information contained in the pages requested for deletion; it only lists the league winners, and does not have the tables for each year. Eldumpo (talk) 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Consolidate per Airplaneman. No need for unnecessary duplication. --Bejnar (talk) 01:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Any renaming discussions can be held on the article's talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Titus

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This is arguably a BLP1E (or would be, if the subject were still alive) -- essentially a non-notable biography about a person who was wrongly accused of rape. JBsupreme (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. BDP1E. Relevant notability standard is the same for both living and dead persons. Pretty clear cut, in my opinion. No coverage of event or individual past when the event was current. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:21, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, there's a good conversation one the article's talk page about notability. If the -event- is notable, or the book covering the event, then the material in this article could contribute to that. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:24, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the participants of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Titus about this AfD. Cunard (talk) 07:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article (though renaming it would be fine). The content of this article is very obviously notable, as demonstrated by the sources, and belongs in one place. Whether the article is titled for the individual or the event is probably not terribly important, but it would be useful to have a reasonably descriptive name. ^Bongo_matic 08:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:12, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename - the prize makes the events documented within notable, regardless of wether any other factors (such as the proven attempt to frame him) might independently do so. Has rceived apparantly signifigant coverage. Per WP:BLP1E he shouldn't have an article abouyt him for this single event. I note that BLP1E is a policy only for living people, but I believe it is also a sensible guideline more generally. The article should not be about Titus himself, but about his case. Steve Titus rape trial, perhaps? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not for news stories of the single-event type, and that's what this is (human tragedy or not). That his story was the basis for a journalist winning a Pulitzer is not, in my opinion enough. What I don't rightly understand is that there isn't an article for the convicted rapist, which is where this would fit in--and in that case a redirect would make sense. Drmies (talk) 19:08, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep - nomination invalid~~ Subject meets WP:GNG (nominator did not doubt this). As per second paragraph of GNG this subject does NOT have to also meet WP:BIO (including BLP1E). It's one or other (BIO or GNG) not both. Agree with Blood Red Sandman but don't delete just because of BLP1E. - Stillwaterising (talk) 23:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The opinion offered that the nomination is invalid is not correct. BLP1E specifically excludes the conclusion of notability for certain events that meet the GNG. ^Bongo_matic 02:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: the nominator never said the subject met GNG, as far as I can tell, but it's not the point, anyway. WP:ONEEVENT and GNG are not at odds--ONEEVENT is a guideline that can allow us to decide for deletion even if GNG is met. (Edit conflict: I think I'm chiming in with Bongo, as usual--except for in our opinion here on deleting!) Drmies (talk) 02:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: Time out, the terms "General Notability Guideline" or "GNG" are not ANYWHERE in BIO. What's referred to is Basic Criteria which are similar to but less than restrictive than GNG. Regardless, GNG says that if GNG is met than topic specific guidelines are optional (my undertanding from the quote that was removed). -Stillwaterising (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. What BLP1E actually says (with my commentary in brackets) is:

If reliable [independent] sources cover [even if significantly] the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them.

In other words, the magic token "GNG" doesn't need to be mentioned for its plain meaning to be that even something that is presumed notable under GNG is not subject to inclusion if it meets the criteria of BLP1E. There is no other interpretation that makes sense.

Further note that the GNG in its own words only gives rise to a presumption of notability, to be rebutted by WP:NOT (explicitly) or other restrictions (implicitly).

The interpretation advanced would remove any semblance of teeth from BLP1E or NOT. ^Bongo_matic 02:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename I'm changing my vote. This is place to discuss notability and not a discussion of the literal interpretation of guidelines. I see the events to be notable but not necessarily the accused. I propose the article be renamed Steve Titus rape case. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm inclined to agree that this is virtually a case of WP:ONEEVENT. Technically it isn't, as the news stories cover more than a single event, but I'm not convinced there's real longterm notability here: this is just a case of a man who was convicted of rape and then had his conviction overturned, with no indication of what makes it particularly important. The strongest claim to being article-worthy is that the coverage of the story won the Pulitzer prize; but so have many other news stories, and does that make them all notable? I don't think so (if anything, it's a claim to the notability of the person who wrote the article instead). Robofish (talk) 12:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, rename, rewrite This information is all notable and documented in reliable sources; however, we should not keep it in a biography of Titus. Rather it should be in an article about the whole case – perhaps Wrongful conviction of Steve Titus – and rewritten so it is not a biography but an encyclopedic entry on the rape, wrongful conviction, subsequent confession by Smith, and perhaps this book. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename/write The event seems notable, although I don't question the person himself could be considered in violation of BLP1E, but the event itself received coverage and has a long lasting impact. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 00:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename or merge there is some potential in merging with Paul Henderson (journalist) as this news story won him the pulitzer and could be claimed to be the most important case of his career. Ash (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story was the basis of a Pulitzer prize. That's sufficient notability. The only reason for renaming is to avoid the undue emphasis on the name of a living individual, and this is irrelevant here. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep per multiple reliable sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lady Gaga: Queen of Pop

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Soon to come book, no independent reliable sources found about it, the author doesn't have a wikipedia page so it's not notable through that. -Zeus-^u|c 00:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources at [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. Also a bit about the author's background here - [27]. There appear to be 2 different titles for the book in different provinces. ArticlesForRedemption 01:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This appears to be a page for a book that doesn't exist (yet?). Vampyrecat (talk) 01:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has pages for lots of things that are yet to exist (Jackass 3D, Bel Ami (2011 film)) and some things that will never exist Star Wars sequel trilogy, Something's Got to Give). ArticlesForRedemption 01:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It will be about a notable person, but at present, there are no references on the article itself and it's almost a speedy delete for lack of content. I'll gladly change to a full-blown keep if it's significantly expanded. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Los Angeles Times item is enough to establish notability. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 07:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete while its true that LA times covered A lady gaga bio, it didnt cover THIS bio, which is from a nonnotable publisher (follow the bouncing isbn). the la times article book, from overlook, probably deserves an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)changed to keep, as it now appears true that there are 2 editions of this book in 2 publishing regions, under the one author name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BK#Not yet published books. The sort of advance notices cited don't mean that "anticipation of the book is notable in its own right" - that's meant for something like a new Harry Potter. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge and redirect~~ to a one-line mention in the Lady Gaga article, if there is sufficient source for that. When the book comes out, it may be appropriate to remove the redirect and improve the article to reflect release and reviews. By the way, the LA Times review is indeed of this book, I've reasonably confirmed that the article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another. So the Brits and the Yanks can have a war over which title gets the prize, its very own shiny new Wikipedia article. Both would be mentioned at Lady Gaga. As to the Lady herself, my, my, my. Perhaps I should do more research on this. Tough job, but someone's got to do it. --Abd (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2010 (UTC) see new !vote below. --Abd (talk) 16:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How have you 'reasonably confirmed that the (LA Times) article is correct and this is being released in the U.S. under one name and in the U.K under another'? SunCreator (talk) 16:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at ArticlesForRedemption's sources above and at the L.A. Times article. Notice [28] for Amazon UK. Notice same author, same subject. And more, I saw more when I looked. Not difficult. Sure, to say "same book, different titles" in an article might require better sources. But that doesn't mean we have to ignore the obvious. --Abd (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Redirect~~ to Lady Gaga until such time as it can satisfy WP:CRYSTALBALL. SunCreator (talk) 20:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Abd below - connecting US and UK to same author. SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. (change to !vote above) There is adequate evidence that the release of this book, both in the U.S. and in Great Britain, is imminent. The LA Times article is evidence of notability, and there is plenty of other mention of this, Amazon is offering the book(s), etc, so the guideline at WP:BK#Not yet published books is satisfied. A temporary Merge could be done, but why bother? No Harm. --Abd (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The author of this book is Virginia Blackburn, who uses the pseudonym Emily Herbert. ArticlesForRedemption provided the source for this, but didn't make it explicit. I'm suspecting that the author, under one name or the other, is sufficiently notable for an article, but have not verified this yet. --Abd (talk) 16:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LA Times article says overlookpress and overlookpress.com gives Emily Herbert. So yes, same book and have amended above to keep. Good work Abd SunCreator (talk) 17:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Besides the fact i hate lady gaga, this book is not very notable. Str8cash (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [29] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per ABD. The article is able to make a sourced, notable statement at least about the two titles for the same book, I see no harm in skipping what I expect will be a merge followed soon by an unmerge. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability as evidenced by secondary source coverage. Also, poker face. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Mysophobia. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rupophobia

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable definition, inaccurate original research. Suggest deletion or perhaps redirection to existing wiktionary article. 7 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - why not reference and tidy up? Opbeith (talk) 00:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete could not find sources independent of WP/mirrors/dictionaries, unless [www.associatedcontent.com/article/1314881/rupophobia_the_fear_of_dirt_or_filth.html?cat=70] this ("http://" removed from beginning of the url, so i can post it here) is, in which case this article is a copyright violation.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to use a different search method or engine. See Google Scholar for numerous good hits. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge The topic is notable - see any of the numerous books listed above. But it is essentially the same topic which we cover better at mysophobia - another name for the same thing. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Or redirect/merge/etc to mysophobia. Please note the google scholar search above; plenty of wp:v, I think. nom, please withdraw this afd, your claim of OR has been fully debunked. The article is a total mess, but (and why do I even need to say this here) that is not a reason to delete it. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fully debunked??? The original author signed it... twice. Feel free to improve the article with the sources you have found if any of them indicate the significance of this condition. From what I saw this was inaccurate and if I went on to make it accurate it would be nothing more than a dicdef - hence my suggestion to redirect to wiktionary. Per SK I cannot withdraw the nom while there are other votes which are delete/merge/redir. 7 22:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Furthermore, while the condition is certainly real the article is really full of OR - chock full of it:

Most suffers do not walk outside for fear of getting their feet dirty -- untrue/wrong or one person's view (hence OR).
As is the case with all phobias the suffer as experienced some tragic event...' - what?!? Seriously? You want the encyclopedia to say that all phobias come from a tragic event?

If you can sift through and remove the OR and have anything more than a dicdef left then yes, we should keep it. If you are able you should certainly fix it. I was not able to find anything worth saving. 7 23:01, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the record I would certainly agree to a redirect as Colonel Warden suggested. 7 23:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

7, thanks for your comments. I think i misunderstood, I thought you were implying that the idea of Rupophobia was OR or something, since that is what would have been relevant to an AfD. Thanks for clarifying. I think we're all in agreement that the page is a disaster as it stands. However, as I tried to say earlier, this is not a reason for deletion. Perhaps we should just redirect to mysophobia, something else we all seem to be in agreement on? ErikHaugen (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect is most likely what the closing admin will do. However, just a note: your comment about what is relevant to an AFD is inaccurate. It is not necessary for the entire concept of the article (or the subject itself) to be OR for OR to apply. If someone had created the idea of Rupophobia themselves then it would be both WP:MADEUP, as well as (by definition) OR. But in cases such as this, or in cases such as BLPs, or companies, or any article for that matter - the thing may be real (the Bio, the company, the phobia) but if the contents of the article are one persons opinion or feelings or research then OR definitely applies. That is precisely what the OR policy is meant to protect us against. 7 03:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, that kind of content needs to go. But that doesn't mean the article needs to be deleted; I'm not sure what I said that you think is inaccurate here. It needs to be rewritten - at least stubbed, but not deleted. ErikHaugen (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 11:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It looks like this term was more common in the late 19th century [30], and that in the last 50 years, it didn't get mentioned except in dictionaries and alphabetical lists of phobias. If no effort is made to source it, then I'd say delete, but there's room to do that. Notability does not expire, and like "brain fever" and "the vapors", this appears to have been notable back in the old days, but it appears that discomfort over uncleanliness (whether its rupophobia or mysophobia) is now treated as a form of Obsessive–compulsive personality disorder. In the long run, it would be better to spin off articles from the general one that we have about OCD. Mandsford (talk) 14:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mysophobia per above unless someone adds a sourced distinction to the article. --Pink Bull 14:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm no sysop, but it sure feels like consensus here is to redirect to Mysophobia. I'll be happy to do the redirecting and address astonishment issues if we're in agreement? ErikHaugen (talk) 19:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. 7 22:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no "keep" !votes, despite 2 relistings, the consensus (such as it is) is delete, without prejudice towards recreation should reliable sources of information be found at a future date. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Swami Premeshananda

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BIO. The "references" provided here fail to pass muster. SchuminWeb (Talk) 03:52, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- —SpacemanSpiff 04:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Google Books search linked above appears to support probable notability, but the snippets displayed are not enough to be absolutely sure. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:12, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is a policy on inclusion of bio. It does not meet the policy even if notability is proven. At the moment it is not even supported by r.sources, so it must go. Wikid ^as© 10:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is to keep, with no delete !votes other than the nomination itself -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roman Holiday (band)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non-notable band. Ridernyc (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A7 Absolutely no reliable sources found anywhere, nor an assertation of notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:09, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If not kept, redirect to Roman Holliday.SPNic (talk) 16:07, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment IP placed a Hangon claiming to add sources, but the only sources added were CD Baby and networking sites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy declined. Review, even a short one, in a magazine notable enough for it's own article is just about enough for A7. Let the AfD run and see if more sources can be found.Ged UK 20:33, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 08:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - Article has been edited since put up for deletion. This included a few sources from acclaimed media to add notability. Starclassic21 (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep some coverage in an alternative weekly paper and on the CD release in a mainstream newspaper. Meets WP:GNG if barely. RadioFan (talk) 16:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:33, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Softlink

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bordeline spam article (placed by WP:SPA) about a company which appears to fail WP:CORP as there appears to be no independent 3rd party coverage of note. Creator has twice removed notability and unreferenced tags without adressing the issues so it looks unlikely they ever will. Phrases such as "Softlink celebrates 25 years of innovation and 10,000 customers in 108 nations" suggest spam. There is a claim of notability in "Softlink Australia wins the Australian Export Award 1999", but this does not in itself appear to meet WP:CORP and there is no sign this resulted in any significant coverage. Note: article was created as Softlink International so most of the history is there. Softlink was previously a redir to Symbolic link, which was replaced using a C&P move. If the article is deleted, this will need to be reverted. I42 (talk) 08:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Intention was certainly not for this to be spam - Softlink's products are used in many parts of the world and I was hoping this could be a platform for users the world over to contribute and build on user derived information and to build a resource which would be useful to the many thousands of users of the system. Libraries and librarians are unfortunately often not given huge funding so any additional resources which may assist them to gather information (about products, features, software intricacies and more) is of great value to librarians. I am happy to change and modify the base entry to meet with requirements, but the intention was for this to be a base entry to be accessed and built on by users of the software, and I felt that was in line with what Wikipedia is all about. Please correct me if I am mistaken.Sjritchie (talk) 06:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is very much not what Wikipedia is about. An article about a company might focus on its history and the impact it and its products have had, but what you are suggesing here is unencyclopedic for two main reasons: (1) Wikipedia is not a how-to guide - no article should be a manual of the use of a product (there are examples that are, that has no bearing here); (2) Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought - it merely collates and presents existing information, "user derived information" should not be first published here. Having said all that, neither of these issues apply to the article yet, but since the article was nominated for deletion you have made the spam issue far worse: "Liberty has proven ability to support the success of organisations and their users across a range of industries, making it a secure and low-risk solution for your library" is pure advertising copy. I42 (talk) 08:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to symbolic link, which this never should have overwritten, with option to userfy User:Sjritchie's version on request. This article would be difficult or impossible to make into a non-spam page because of the lack of independent sources, but the subject appears to be real, and could become notable in the future. / edg ☺ ☭ 12:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and redirect to symbolic link. This is unambiguous advertising: a web-based library and information management solution used at thousands of schools... delivers secure, online access to all information and learning resources.... robust technology and easy-to-use features.... used by individuals and organisations worldwide to achieve objectives and discover information.... A scalable, high-performance solution... has proven ability to support the success of organisations and their users across a range of industries, making it a secure and low-risk solution for your library. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
probable keep This is not a part of the library field I specialize in, and the main area of use is not in the US; therefore I have no previous familiarity with it. I need to check further for reviews. Certainly not a speedy, because promotional aspects could be removed by editing. A description of a product is not necessarily promotional. A statement of the number of users can be promotional, but can also be the sort of think that establishes notability-- for a product, market share is relevant--and 10,000 users, if verified is a very significant share of the market. There is at least one acceptable source: the inclusion in the LJ "Investing in The Future: Automation Marketplace 2009" shows a sufficiently important product to be included there. the assertion that it is particularly suited to handling complex serials is quite interesting, because from the perspective of a research library, this is one of the major gaps in most existing library systems. DGG ( talk ) 16:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC) ,[reply]
- The complex serial numbers feature might be worth a mention in an encyclopedic article, but who makes that statement? As far as I can tell, the claims on Library Journal come from the product sellers—language elsewhere on that page describes a company in first person plural—and are not evaluations by LJ. And the idea that this feature is unusual and therefore notable might be original research on our part. Without independent secondary sources, we're just taking the company's word on everything, which would open Wikipedia to much abuse.
  At best, this subject might merit a mention on List of integrated library systems, or the examplefarm on Integrated library system. Anything more is WP:ADVERT. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - To research the library angle, I'd recommend their profile at Library Technology Guides Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice - this certainly wasn't intended to be a spam entry - and I mentioned this earlier. The entry is valid and would prove to be a valuable resource as it grows for users of the software. I am slowly building the entry to ensure it meets all criteria, and I hope it will be accepted. I am open to suggestions to where I can improve the entry. As this is my first entry for Wikipedia, it is a steep learning curve to ensure I have provided all relevant data. As for comments suggesting it shouldn't be an entry - I'm confused as there are already comparative entries for Library Management Systems out there and don't see this as being any different? ( i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen) though I do admit the entry itself needs work. Sjritchie (talk) 16:35, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I take note that the creator of the article has offered to improve it to meet our standards. The section listing all the countries where it has been installed is especially unencylopedic, and would need to be removed as part of article improvement. A list of the announced features is not very helpful; people can go to the product's web site for that. Even an article that was entirely written from third-party reviews would have more claim on our attention than this one. If I had time to work on it I would try to read all the references and dig up usable information. Until it looks like a real Wikipedia article, I think we should wait. When the current state of an article is so far off the norm, assessing notability is hard to do, even though some of the problems could be fixed by rewriting. EdJohnston (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have made numerous modifications to the entry and feel it it is improving in its relevance. I appreciate everyone's feedback (positive & negative) as that is the only way this article will improve - through directed criticism to enable me to target sections to improve. As for deletion - that would result in some systems having a Wikipedia Entry (i.e. SirsiDynix, Koha, Evergreen + others) while others do not - all are comparative systems. This would not be fair to the end user who is seeking knowledge on the topic. I'm sure the entry can be improved to a point where it is able to be accepted as an entry.Sjritchie (talk) 03:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Whether this is kept or deleted, it ought to be moved to Softlink (software) so that the redirect in softlink can be restored. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete references not sufficient to meet WP:ORG as none appear to be independent of this company or in a significant secondary source - several are clearly press releases from the company or directory listings. The article is also spammy. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. With no keep !votes, concensus is clearly to delete -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jewel in The Palace (Philippine TV series)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

contested PROD. lacks reliable sources for a future event. fails WP:CRYSTAL. Bluemask (talk) 08:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another hoax upcoming show. -WayKurat (talk) 07:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pepito Manaloto

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

lacks reliable sources for a future event. fails WP:CRYSTAL. Bluemask (talk) 09:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or delete per WP:CRYSTAL - not yet ready for mainspace. Bearian (talk) 22:32, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep because, the trailer of the new show is aired now on GMA-7. - Gabby 17:00, 18 February 2010 (PST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabbyshoe (talk • contribs)
Keep since this article about an upcoming television show is sure to be aired within next month. Although an upcoming event, it's almost 100% that the show will be shown since a teaser of it is repeatedly airing on GMA-7. Vekou (talk) 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This afd was initiated in mid-February arguing for deletion based on WP:CRYSTAL because this show which was supposed to start in March. It is now March, so the issue is moot. --Pink Bull 14:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 17:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Amateur Radio Society

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG. hardly anything in gnews [31]. I will reconsider if someone provides evidence in Urdu (and not just say there must exist non English sources). LibStar (talk) 11:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this organization. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
weak Keep I tend to think a bunch of amateurs being involved in the creation of Badr-1 (Pakistan's first Digital Communications Experimental satellite) [32][33] might just give it WP:N. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. PanchoS (talk) 15:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:CLUB and apparent prior consensus to use stubs instead of a pile of external links at the international club article, and the List of amateur radio organizations --Abd (talk) 00:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have opened a discussion of this AfD and a dozen others open at this time for member societies at Talk:International_Amateur_Radio_Union#AfDs_on_stubs_for_member_societies, and have asked a question about the use of stubs like this at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies. --Abd (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Membership of IARU is sufficient for notability. The article could do with expansion, but that alone is not reason for deletion. Dsergeant (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Dsergeant, and along the lines of ARRL or ARES. It's notable, it just needs references for verifiability. Unsigned comment by Ks0stm talk, 19:47, 25 February 2010, note by Abd (talk) 21:54, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the general rule is that national organizations in any field and for any country are notable. It's established practice that there is nothing wrong with a stub article, either--almost every major article in Wikipedia was at the beginning a stub article, and usually unbsourced as well. If all that can be said at the moment is very little, we say it. Most encyclopedias have had very small articles, amounting just to listings or definitions. Diderot's Encyclopedie did, and most Brittanicas. We have real problems in that most of our articles on anything are inadequately sourced, or not up to date , or both, so why should we bother about trying to eliminate 100 stubs or thereabouts. If only marginal notability were the most serious difficulty we face! Live and let live is the only practical way of coping with a very large scale voluntary organization, DGG ( talk ) 02:54, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. seems to be consensus that there are insufficient sources for notability DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cheney Brothers

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete No evidence of notability. No sources in article. A web source produced the company's own site and other non-independent sources. It also produced significant coverage of a completely different Cheney Brothers (of South Manchester, Connecticut), but no significant independent coverage of this Cheney Brothers. Judging both by the user name and by past editing history the creator of the article (Cheney Ashley) has a conflict of interest, and the article is probably intended to be promotional: whether this is so or not, I have been unable to find evidence of notability, or any independent sources. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep COI issues aside, the article appears to be sourceable. The company has been covered in a number of articles in the South Florida Business Jornal RadioFan (talk) 13:43, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A total of five articles in the South Florida Business Journal mention Cheney Brothers. In three of these Cheney Brothers gets one passing mention in an article about something else. (For example, an article about Alasave Buying Alliance says "Participating national vendors include Perdue, Costco, Staples and Sysco, plus local distributors, such as Riviera Beach-based Cheney Brothers and All Seas Seafood of Florida and Caro Longo Wholesale Produce." That is the only mention of Cheney Brothers.) Another one of the articles reports the fact that Catalfumo Construction and Development Inc built a new warehouse for Cheney Brothers. The other article tells us that Cheney Brothers has installed a wireless digital mobile phone system. I do not think that this constitutes substantial coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A reference has also been added to the article from an industry magazine.--RadioFan (talk) 12:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, RadioFan has added such a reference. When I looked at the "article" concerned it struck me as reading exactly like an advertisement. When I looked further at the nature of the site on which it appears it became clear to me that this is a trade promotion vehicle. For example, it invites businesses to "Contact us today to discuss how we can help market your product or service to the refrigerated transportation market!" This is not independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, local company. Sole Soul (talk) 15:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not seeing the reliable, secondary coverage. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Properly sourced and neutrally written material on this and similar portable devices (i.e. not the content of the deleted article) can be included at hygrometer via normal editing processes. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:26, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dewcheck

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete article Dewcheck, which consists almost entirely of advertising for a non-notable product. Wikipedia is not for articles that advertise. See WP:NOTADVERTISING. There appears to be no point in attempting to salvage this article, as the entire thing is oriented toward a non-notable product. See WP:GNG, the General Notability Guideline.

Taquito1 (talk) 04:10, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable device from a non-notable company. possible spamvertisement. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 12:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article is about a class of devices just xerox is these days (genericized trademark), not about a particular device from a given manufacturer. I wish people read the article more closely before voting. No opinion for now if it's notable or not. Pcap ping 10:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal to Comment: User:NicoFrankhuizen, the author of Dewcheck, deleted a reference to a competing product by Elcometer (TQC makes Dewcheck), and wrote at User talk:213.84.3.249, "This is article is about the Dewcheck, the [Elcometer] 319 is a different brand...By referring to a different gauge, you should create a separate page". Thus, he showed the article to be brand-specific. He said he was "highly involved with the development of the Dewcheck". TQC's website shows he is an employee. I read Dewcheck, found it to be blatant advertisement, and found no evidence on the Internet that "Dewcheck" is generic. Special:Contributions/NicoFrankhuizen shows he uses Wikipedia primarily to promote TQC. I think he should be banned, but that is a separate topic. -- Taquito1 (talk) 04:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - The article title is not a generic term, but rather is a particular brand of a device for measuring dew point, known generically as a "dew point gauge" or "dew point meter". The article claims that it is not a registered trademark, but is used generically. However, here are websites about other brands of this type of device that do not use the term "Dewcheck": [34] [35]. I think that Dew point meter would be the best new name for the article. (The article could benefit from some cleanup, too but if the title were changed it would not look so much like an advertisement.) --Orlady (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable proprietary instrument. We already have an article on Hygrometer. -Atmoz (talk) 18:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I take into account that there was some double !voting; the consensus is still that he does not pass WP:ATHLETE. JohnCD (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Vargas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable footballer. Unreferenced BLP, no assertion or sources to show that this player has ever played at fully professional level. Therefore fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:FOOTYN King of the North East 19:35, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. King of the North East 19:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Try as I might, I can't find evidence he has taken the field at any of his 3 clubs he has been at. Fails ATHLETE. Also fails GNG as there only seems to be club profile and routine coverage passing mentions. None of the sites have any stats at all for him playing.--ClubOranje^T 08:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article is completely unreferenced, and there's no evidence the subject is notable. A clear cut deletion in my opinion. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ~~Keep~~. If he played for Lota Schwager, he may pass WP:ATHLETE as I think the league they play in (Chile's second division) is fully professional (could someone confirm this?). ~~As far as I can tell however, he doesn't even appear on the club's website (click on the "Plantel" link at the bottom) - there are four goalies listed here but he ain't one of them.~~ Bettia (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He played 8 matches for Lota Schwager, and he doesn't play more for U de Chile, he signed for Deportes Copiapo: http://www.chileazul.cl/foro/index.php/topic,135056.0.html and the second division of Chile is totally professional: http://www.anfp.cl/campeonato_nacional.php this is the official page of the assosation football in Chile. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alechuncho (talk • contribs)

Request Could a Spanish speaker please (translate / provide a pointer to) the part that indicates the second division in Chile is fully professional as it doesn't seem to appear in this list--ClubOranje^T 00:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good question. According to Article 7 of the league regulations, every team in Primera B must have a minimum of 12 professional players. I wonder if that would be enough to make this league fully professional? I'll raise this over at WP:FPL. Bettia (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that info. This match report confirms he played for their first team in the quarter-finals of the Chilean Cup, although this page suggests he played 10 games for them, not 8. ~~Anyway, it appears he meets WP:ATHLETE and so I've changed my !vote to keep.~~ Bettia (talk) 09:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 14:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep according to the sources given he meets WP:Athlete Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - why is deletion so often urged with such confident absence of knowledge?Opbeith (talk) 23:42, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Following this discussion, neither Primera A or Primera B in Chile are fully professional (only about half the players are professional), so I'm changing my !vote yet again as this player does not pass WP:ATHLETE. Bettia (talk) 09:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reassert deletion per my delete comment above. Notwithstanding there is a site which shows he has appeared for one club, he does not demonstrably pass WP:ATHLETE as Primera B is semi professional and not a top level league, Chilean Cup is open to amateur and semi pro clubs, he has not played for the senior international side. Still fails WP:GNG as there is no in-depth independent coverage of him, only team-sheet mentions, regular sports coverage name inclusions and club profiles. The one reference provided that does discuss him is a blog/forum which fails any and all reliable source and notability criteria.--ClubOranje^T 12:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely no evidence of passing WP:ATH and clear failure of WP:GNG Spiderone 21:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:36, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mary Douglas Drysdale

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not apparently notable by Wikipedia standards, at the moment it just reads like a resume. The article is strewn with copyright infringing scans. Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KeepPlease re-read WP:BEFORE. It is a good idea to determine if there are reliable and independent sources about a subject before nominating for AFD, even if there are problems with the current form of the article. Winner of many awards for her designs, and written up in numerous publications. On House Beautiful's list of America's "top 100 designers" per Google search summary of a Wash Post story. Easily satisfies WP:N and WP:BIO. If the article has scans of magazine coverage of her work, and they violate copyright policy, the editing can correct the problem. Google News archive has 129 hits for her and her work, with the Washington Post calling her "prominent Washington interior designer" and "urbane designer" and "a leading lady of Washington's interior design community." See also House Beautiful which called her "one of the most sought-after designers in the nation's capital" Interior Design called her a "discerning collector of art". She is not just a locally prominent designer. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel called her a "nationally known designer". Internationally, she was covered by the Toronto Star. Copley News Service called her a "top designer" who is "widely celebrated for "unexpected surprises." Google Book Search provides 66 results. See [36], [37], [38], [39] and [40], for examples of coverage of her work. Edison (talk) 19:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Edison.Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Edison. --Joe Decker (talk) 19:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus seems to be that the coverage mentioned here and cited in the article is not sufficient to bestow notability. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Qwitter

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Found a writeup on cnet and some blogs, original thread claimed to be "controversial and covered by cnn and wired", but I have found no indication that either claim is true. -Zeus-^u|c 19:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - found this link which mentions about CNN [41] Teckko (talk) 20:00, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(disclaimer - above is article creator) - a passing mention does not count as coverage, and you don't even have the original article. -Zeus-^u|c 20:04, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It was very easy to find CNN coverage (e.g. qwitter site:cnn.com search) in two articles; I added both. Feel free to remove them if they strike you as passing mentions. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 05:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No real notability, no non-trivial references in non-blog media, doesn't meet WP:WEB in any other way.--Res 2216 firestar 22:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Res. Simon-in-sagamihara (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added some references supporting the 'controversial' claim. Qwitter attracted notice from ReadWriteWeb, Mashable, WebProNews, CEO Magazine, and others. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 04:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pcap ping 10:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The controversy comes from violating Twitter's terms of service, and this article is pretty much designed to do one thing; attract eyeballs and attract advertisers. Doesn't meet any notability. Nate • (chatter) 10:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unremarkable, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

6th Album (Britney Spears album)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:HAMMER All of the sources are for it's release, how it's "due out" or "new CD in May", and similar time frame based statements. However it still appears nameless. Shadowjams (talk) 09:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt Hammeriffic; The title of the article speaks for itself, or it would if the lede didn't contradict itself by saying the title is "Britney Spears 7th Studio Album". Nate • (chatter) 10:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge information to Britney Spears, delete article. No title, no tracklist, no article, which is part of WP:HAMMER Some of the references are based on speculation, some seem to know what they're talking about, which goes against WP:CRYSTAL. But with a high-volume of gossip surrounding this artist, I have no idea what's real and what isn't. –Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 12:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sources are too thin to keep. WP:HAMMER. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 13:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just thought it would be easier for those looking for information about the new album to sum it up in it's own page. Delete it please.

The above statement is from User:Lyserg16 who created the article. DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Although I'm not gonna tag it as such, wouldn't that qualify for Wp:CSD#G7? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 19:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Since there's no tracklisting, release date or name (or even consistency - see Mrschimpf's comment), the Wp:HAMMER should come out to play ~~(preferably in a skimpy schoolgirl uniform)~~. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty straightforward, given comments above. Note that the article has two different months as release date, and says it's both the 6th and 7th album. The sources given might be from "reliable" media outlets but the information itself is too gossippy at this early date. Patience, grasshoppers... DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete This album doesn't even have a title, that there is enough for deletion, aside from the lack of release date, no track listing and very little significant coverage in independent reliable sources. --Volbeatfan (talk) 04:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL Rlendog (talk) 15:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until album has a name. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular ^T · C 06:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Porter and Chester Institute

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article covers a non-notable for profit training program. I could not find reliable sources to establish notability. I had PRODed the article, but it was declined because it contained non-advertising content. The article was created by an SPA. Racepacket (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 chat 01:37, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient third party references. SmokingNewton (talk) 02:38, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Schools of higher learning are generally considered inherently notable. This one has eight branches and gets of lots of Googlehits.[42] --Pink Bull 14:35, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 16:08, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Created by a SPA it might be, but this isn't a "training program;" it's a trade school of long standing in western New England. I'm curious as to exactly where the nom looked for reliable sources, because there are 271 Google News hits, with links to relevant court cases, the Hartford Courant, the Worcester Telegram and the Springfield Union-News. RGTraynor 19:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with RGTraynor. This is a tertiary educational institution that has existed since 1946 (under various names) and has 8 locations. The school isn't Harvard and the article may have been created by a SPA, but institutions of this nature can generally be assumed to be notable. I haven't done a thorough search, but I've found a bunch of third-party web content that mentions this school in a diverse variety of contexts (articles about campus expansions, stories of successful students, articles about zoning issues involving some of their campus expansions, announcements of public service activities, court decisions in lawsuits etc.). --Orlady (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necanthrope

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable topic in a role-playing game, contested PROD. I can't find any significant coverage of "necanthrope" or "necanthropy" in reliable sources. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Necanthropes are as far as I know only mentioned within game sources (or at least hardly anywhere else). They are vital for understanding the game world however and thus, in my view, are important, beyond being a simple section of a game universe describing article. I plan to expand on the article in the near future as well as write about more of the game world. —Preceding unsigned comment added by FrederikHertzum (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pcap ping 11:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:GAMEGUIDE, WP:INUNIVERSE. No indication of notability. Filtered Google results show little of value: [43]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm unable to find reliable sources. Hobit (talk) 03:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Hub

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODx3 removed without comment by an IP so here we are at AFD. Non-notable student organisation which does not appear to pass WP:ORG. No news ghits[44] and the general ghits are mix of organisations own copy and user-published sources.[45] Nancy ^talk 07:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable student charity which, as far as I can tell, lacks significant coverage or other qualifications to meet WP:ORG. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not much more to add that has not been said by Nancy in the nom and Glenfarclas - Non-notable bordering on promotional. Codf1977 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —Codf1977 (talk) 10:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - clearly fails WP:ORG. ukexpat (talk) 14:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. (GregJackP (talk) 15:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - although an admirable organization, notability has not been established by independent secondary sources. Racepacket (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate Sceptics Party

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable political/activist group. Despite the name, it is not a registered political party so indistinguishable from any other activist group. Coverage in third party sources is trivial or incidental. Barrylb (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I found an article (though it isn't a major paper) where the party was the main focus of the article, and without meaning to crystal ball, the party is claiming it is near registration at a federal level. Andjam (talk) 11:20, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't see the article Andjam talks about. As the nominator states, passing mention isn't enough. So far seems not sufficiently notable, not even to merge with articles about climate change skepticism (i.e., in a list of activist groups). What the party claims isn't relevant to its notability. --Abd (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's the The Border Watch article. Andjam (talk) 11:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with the exception of the Border Watch article, the coverage is pretty trivial. If additional references to reliable sources cannot be found, I don't think they're sufficiently notable at this time. Robofish (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Do any of these reliable sources help establish this topic's notability?[46][47][48][49][50][51] I don't think they're used by the article currently, but they can be worked in. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:13, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They would help, sure, but only a little. But I read all those sources and they don't establish notability. None of them are about the party itself, they are passing mentions. Basically an activist does something to get in the news, such as filing a candidacy, then claims to be a member of the party, or the like. Not enough of this for sheer weight to establish notability. The Border Watch article is not enough. This "party" is still not organized as a political party, the candidate running for office is running as an independent. That ought to be a clue. --Abd (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if the Australian Goverment's Department of Climate Change is a reliable source (although it probably is), it mentions the Climate Sceptics Party here[52] and discusses their TV commercials here.[53] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is actually the weightiest source yet, but it's also problematic. The substance here is that the DCC is responding to a "Climate Skeptics" advertising campaign. Somebody is spending money on climate skepticism in Australia, apparently. And using the name of "Climate Skeptics." I'm an inclusionist, generally, but there is an absence of reliable secondary source here. The DCC is a primary source, showing that the Australian government took the ads seriously enough to respond to CS arguments. What does that mean? If the article exists, this can be in it, presented neutrally (and assuming that the "Climate Skeptics" is shown to be connected with the "Party.") But I don't think it establishes notability much more than an individual having placed such an ad would establish their own notability. There is a possible compromise: redirect and merge with an article on climate skepticism, and give the "party" a one-line mention with reference in that article. Later, if the party becomes more notable, the article could become a stub and then a fuller article, assuming that better sourcing becomes available. --Abd (talk) 21:49, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One more:[54] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Though I suspect they will make news in the near future and become notable, they are not now. Sole Soul (talk) 08:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Can't find reliable secondary sources about the party. --Joe Decker (talk) 23:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Reimer

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and WP:POLITICIAN. a non notable local councillor. hardly anything on gnews [55]. LibStar (talk) 06:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find anything notable about this person. –BuickCentury Driver 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not even close to meeting WP:BIO. THF (talk) 12:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLITICIAN clearly points out that city councillors (with the possible exception of those in major cities) are not generally deemed notable just for holding office. I'd suggest that listing them in Coquitlam City Council would be the appropriate solution here, but even that title seems to be a redirect to Coquitlam rather than an independent article. Delete, though if an article about the council itself is ever initiated it would be acceptable to redirect the councillors' names to it. Bearcat (talk) 23:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dhoom 3. I will create, and if necessary protect, a redirect from this title to Dhoom series with a commented-out note about the incubated version, in order to avoid the danger that while this is in the Incubator a new article gets started, which might lead to complications requiring a history merge. JohnCD (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dhoom 3

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NFF. Still not in production, and only news bits are "rumors" of who will be in the cast. Already been deleted before, but speedy declined as last deletion was 3 years ago and the film is supposedly closer to starting production (though this claim is unsourced). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not in production but still plenty of notability; a thing doesn't have to exist to be notable. Indian Express reports negotiations here, One India has the same story here, IBN Live has Yash Raj denying them here, India Times has more recent news here, and that's just English language sources. Passes WP:N requirement of significant coverage in independent reliable sources, despite not being in production yet. Another example of a film that would have merited an article despite being nowhere near production would have been the Watchmen film at any point during its 10-year-long development hell. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW that last one, India Times, is your source for "closer to production", although who knows where they got it from. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NFF. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles." —Mike Allen

I see WP:NFF but I've got no idea how that jibes with WP:N's assertion that any topic with significant coverage in reliable independent sources is considered notable. Jurassic Park 4 for example has a large and well-referenced section in the article on the Jurassic Park series, and per WP:SIZE were it to grow larger it would be totally appropriate to break it out into its own article. In another medium, Duke Nukem Forever is notable precisely BECAUSE of its time in development hell. The Halo film is intensely notable for its role in the respective careers of Neill Blomkamp and Peter Jackson despite never commencing principal photography (I know that topic doesn't have its own article but there's enough coverage out there to support one). The situation here is we have a film so widely anticipated that it's regularly discussed by every Indian entertainment news outlet worth its salt, and where a degree of cultural fluency with its purported state of development is an essential part of understanding contemporary Bollywood. There's contradictory policy here and a topic that, whether or not it exists, headlines hundreds of news articles. Keep seems the only realistic option. - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXIST. Once there is enough coverage (such as filming) then JP4 will see its own article. As for Duke Nukem, WP:NFF goes on to say "Additionally, films that have already begun shooting, but have not yet been publicly released (theatres or video), should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." Yes, this guideline is for films, but I'm sure it applies to video games too. Now as for this film the production itself is not notable enough to merit its own article, and for all we know, this may never see the light of day. It may be canceled. Which is why we have the WP:NFF guideline in the first place to prevent every future film being listed here as you never know what may happen. Look what happened to Spider-Man 4, everyone, even the cast, was so sure it was going to happen. Now its been canceled and they are rebooting the franchise, at the last minute. Surely you understand why we have this guideline? —Mike Allen 00:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the current version of WP:NFF encourages that films should probably not have articles unless they at least commence filming, WP:CRYSTAL is set in place to specifically address that some anticipated future events might actually be notable enough to be worth reporting. What is perhaps worth remembering here is that the prospects toward the film are verifiable, the topic is (at least in India) of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the film had already been made, and that it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future projects and/or whether some development will occur... but only if the article is properly and well referenced. No WP:NFF article can really be "about" a film, as the film does not exist... but an article about the topic of a proposed film can be about pre-production and prospects toward its completion... but only if the coverage toward such prospects exists and is significant. All that said, I still think it would be best to incubate this so it can get the attention it needs as filming draws near. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point, the film has not been made yet. Only rumors that it will exist. Incumbate or not, my !vote is still delete from mainspace, which I thought Articles for deletion was for. —Mike Allen 08:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own understanding of AFD is that it exists as a place to discuss the future or lack of an article being considered for deletion... and not just a place with only two options. My understanding was that it existed as a place to discuss how an article might best serve the project... either through its deletion if absolutely worthless or unsalvagable... or through a keep if either currently notable or soon-to-be-so.. or through one of the several other alternatives listed at WP:DEL under WP:ATD... one of which is the WP:Incubation of something that might be improved to serve the project but is not. quite. ready. yet. And yes, that would remove it from mainspace without a redirect until such time as it might actually be ready. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Surely, we can't propose that denial of a film's development qualifies as a reliable source to testify to a film's notability. The purpose of NFF is to avoid Wikipedia being cluttered with hundreds of thousands of articles about films that were, at one point or another, proposed for development but were never completed. That's neither encyclopedic nor helpful to a reader. This article fails NFF for having no reliable sources to prove that the film has begun principal photography. The India Times article is from the "Gossip" section of the paper and the very first sentence begins with "If rumours are to be believed...". Nothing reliable there. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 14:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NFF, as I've had occasion to remark before, is quite clear; it's more specific than WP:N or WP:GNG and doesn't conflict with those guidelines, but supplements them. It was put in place, as I understand it, for precisely the reason suggested by User:Big Bird above, that Wikipedia would otherwise be "cluttered with hundreds and thousands of articles about films that were ... proposed for development but were never completed." Speculation about Bollywood projects is rampant and should be confined to its natural habitat, filmi magazines; this is an encyclopedia which is about confirmed facts. I'm sure no one will object to the article being remade if and when principal photography begins. It may offer some useful perspective to remember that the people who created the articles that were the subject of previous AfDs noted above were probably also convinced that the film's debut was imminent and we were just ignorant for suggesting otherwise -- in 2006. It's precisely because this article has already failed at AfD a couple of times that we are correct to insist that it meets every applicable standard. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Incubate Even for it being an anticipatory film project, the topic is impinging strongly upon WP:CRYSTAL's "the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur" through it's significant coverage from 2005 through 2010 [56]. Of "wide interest" to India is good enough for en.Wikipedia. Deletion is not always the only choice. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be userfied as well. However, and I say this with all due respect to you, Michael, the discussion of this or any other AfD has to do with whether a mainspace/articlespace article should exist on this topic or if it should be deleted from mainspace. Dhoom 3 should be deleted as an article in mainspace and the above !votes are presented as arguments with respect to this. That material is userfied or merged or anything else similar can be discussed concurrently and in addition with the deletion discussion but should not be done instead of deletion discussion (not at AfD, at least). The main purpose of this discussion is, in fact, deletion. "Userfy" means "delete from mainspace and move to user page". Material in user space can exist unreferenced and non-notable without any time limits. As far as article space is concerned, deletion is the only option for material shown not to meet the notability guidelines. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy means remove from mainspace and put it somewhere where issues for an article with potential might be adressed away from a ticking clock... just as does Incubate. With respect in return, deletion and other options to improve the article and the project are exactly why we are at AFD and why AFD is not just a vote. While it might have prevented an AFD discussion in the first place if userfication or incubation were discussed on the article's talk page, they were not and now we are here. Discussing it elsewhere now would be a duplication of efforts. So as the article was brought here due to the nominator's concerns, this becomes the forum to discuss possible options beyond a simple "keep" or "delete". Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're advocating to "delete from mainspace (meaning Dhoom 3 becomes a red-link) and move to user page" which is still "delete" with an additional suggestion. I don't think it's necessary to debate semantics here. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 21:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You already seem to agree that the article has potential and might be improved away from mainspace, so yes... no need to debate semantics, as there are many ways that something might be removed from mainspace without actual deletion of the material... and that's what we are discussing.. yes? If an artcle has potential, but does not quite yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards, the act of moving something to Incubation or Userspace is not quite as permanent as the outright deletion of the material, and such is the opinion I offer in discussion with editors here and the closer. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your definition of the purposes of incubation, but it's not quality standards we're talking about here, it's more like a pass/fail criterion. The future films guideline is quite specific; if the film is not in production, we shouldn't have the article in articlespace. Improving the quality of an article that cannot be in articlespace is a waste of time -- unless you are suggesting that there is a chance this could somehow meet the general notability guideline, in which case those citations would be useful right here and now. Why not just call up the deleted version if and when the film goes into production? I routinely retrieve such materials on request. Accounting4Taste:talk 23:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That its coverage of this topic seems to meet WP:GNG does not seem to be in doubt... just the fact that it has not yet begun filming even with all its coverage. Where WP:NFF advises waiting until filming has commeneced, WP:CRYSTAL advises that a future event must be worth in some way discussing. Two guidelines in conflict... and both of a parent that determines something worthy of note if the topic has significant coverage. The article was 3 days old when tagged for deletion, and then sent to AFD... and no discussion on how sourcing concerns might be addressed had been initiated with its author or on the article's talk page prior to its nomination. Yes, not mandtated.. but nice. I don't think anyone here is denying its potential, and the current artticle is in need of expansion and sourcing, why not move it to incubation as WP:DEL offers, so it can be worked on in the interim? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting moving it to incubation -- to a page name something like User:MichaelQSchmidt/Dhoom 3 -- and leaving a redirect in place? Accounting4Taste:talk 04:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upon examination of the relevant material about incubation, I see that it's not allowed to leave a redirect in place, which addresses any concerns I might have. I have no problem with incubating this article as long as it doesn't return to articlespace until it entirely meets WP:NFF. Accounting4Taste:talk 04:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You found the answer before I could get back and offer it. Yup, no redirect to a incubated article. The move would be to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Dhoom 3. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Dhoom series until this gets off the ground. THF (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Nothing there discuses Dhoom 3. Isn't that giving the reader a false impression that a Dhoom 3 exist on Wikipedia? —Mike Allen
  - A merge would first put the information there and then would be followed by a redirect from the old article name to the new location. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hopefully fully sourced information (no rumors)? —Mike Allen 09:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - It won't be let out of Incubation otherwise, and might yet be deleted entirely there if not improved. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:06, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        If you merge the existing material (as it is now) to the series page, it's not sourced, is why I asked. :) —Mike Allen 20:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm in favor of the article being sent to WP:INCUBATE so it can get the attention it requires, and not return until fully ready. However, any possible merge would be to a section about a proposed third in the series, and if sourcable information remained unsourced a cite tag will flag the sentence or two for attention. Of course, even you or I might be the ones to add a citation in that instance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:38, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect/merge one sentence to K. R. Sridhar. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:41, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K.r.sridhar

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has a reference and is fairly new, but is very "ehh" in terms of quality/legitimacy as I see it Z S 06:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Merge some coverage in gnews [57] including in Businessweek and Time.LibStar (talk) 06:51, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to K. R. Sridhar. --Car Tick 03:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge and redirect to the properly sourced K. R. Sridhar. Racepacket (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Cemetery, Billings, Montana

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This appears to be a completely run-of-the-mill parish cemetery in Montana. Needless to say, it's mentioned plenty of times in obituaries as the place of interment, but I can find no significant coverage of the cemetery itself, nor any reason to think it's in any way notable. Contested PROD. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As with Billings Cemetery and Mountview Cemetery, Billings, Montana, there's no showing of anything notable about this particular location. There is no inherent notability for cemeteries, even if one could count them as being "populated places". At a minimum, there should be something such as it being an historical site, or the resting place of "notable" persons (i.e., person's whose article on Wikipedia hasn't yet been deleted). Mandsford (talk) 14:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable cemetery. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:39, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There doesn't appear to be about this cemetery that makes it more notable than any other parish cemetery, and cemeteries have no inherent notability (nor should they). TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:17, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. While more than one of the sources provided in this discussion would not be sufficient in-and-of-themselves, when taken together with the Mania.com review, there are at least three or four reliable sources showing notability. 1. Mania.com review of the OVA. 2. SEXFRIEND―セックスフレンドビジュアルファンブック, which includes interviews with voice cast members and production information. 3. The Anime Encyclopedia entry, which by itself isn't significant, but is acceptable given the two previous items mentioned. 4. The Animeland review. These four sources satisfy WP:N and WP:V. Therefore, I have closed this discussion as keep. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 09:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sexfriend

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish its notability as required by Wikipedia General Notability Guideline by providing significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that although this article does provide external links to reviews, these reviews are made by directory websites and are not considered significant. Wikipedia is not a directory and therefore such content do not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 04:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this article is about a computer game. It's the article is just defining the word "Sexfriend" we could move it to wiktionary.org and they would test the word for nobility. –BuickCenturyDriver 10:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Your wish to transfer the article elsewhere doesn't make it merit a Keep. Article fails WP:GNG, which is a crucial requirement. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just being a computer game doesn't mean it is notable. I do not see significant coverage in reliable sources, so no article for me. Quantpole (talk) 12:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It seems in has print coverage [58] [59] in The anime encyclopedia, ISBN 1933330104, p. 578 Pcap ping 12:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not acceptable per WP:Verifiability. Given URLs cannot be used to verify anything as the text is hardly visible. I even doubt that the highlighted terms are actually references to the game. They seem like generic call words. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your interpretation of WP:V is incorrect: an otherwise reliable source that is in print only and not available online is perfectly acceptable source for citation purposes. That effort is required does not negate the information. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am afraid you got me wrong. Pcap has introduced a Google Book page, not a book citation. Book citation is perfectly OK, yes. But a Google Books page which shows so little of the book that you cannot even verify whether the searched term is used in the sense that you mean or not, is outright unacceptable. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nonetheless, if Pcap read the book, cite from it and tell us that he has done so, I'll believe him and take WP:Verifiability for granted. Fleet Command (talk) 07:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy of The Anime Encylopedia, and I want to point out that even though Pcap provided two links, those are both to the same source. One was a search on the anime's name and one was on a character's name, but both are for the same entry in the book. Also, one of the searches showed the word "Sexfriend" mentioned on three pages in the book, but only one of those pages has information about this anime. One of the other pages is completely unrelated, while another is a comment in an entry for a different anime saying it is based on a game by the same company that created Sexfriend. Calathan (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hmmm -- these two hits in the g-books hits are walkthrough guides. Which suggests some sort of notability to the game, though it's outside my field to know exactly how much notability. Also, do not overlook that there is an English language review of the game in the article, which to put it mildly is rare for a game not released in English. Plus there's the above encyclopedia coverage of the OVA, which is also suggestive. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not acceptable per WP:NOTDIR. In addition, suggestiveness is not enough. There are lots of suggestive things that give article the allusion of notability while it is in fact not notable. All these are not acceptable in Wikipedia. Fleet Command (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - The game guides, you mean, for that first comment? You'll have to walk me through (*cough*) the interpration there. How is someone choosing to publishing an entire book devoted to a single game a directory? As for the rest, yes, suggestions do not prove anything to the letter of Wikipedia's law -- but they do indicate it's not an open-and-shut case, and this requires a careful look instead of rushing to judgement. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - I see what you mean: True enough. But the information given in there can be made fit into just an infobox. (Walkthrough section already does not merit inclusion, per WP:NOTGUIDE.)
      
      And no, unlike what you said, I really do not mean to game the system: That is just the correct way to prove notability: Significant coverage of the games facts (not statistics or tips-and-tricks).
      Of course, I'd also accept if a group of sources (which I might not know their reputation) prove that the subject of the article has public acceptance. But you see, a Japanese book seems is a minority source. So, as you see, no matter in what direction I look at this affair, it looks like an article that does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia.
      Fleet Command (talk) 08:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not saying that a walkthrough section should be added to the article -- I'm suggesting that the existance of a walkthrough guide indicates that a third party believes this a notable enough game to be worth publishing. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~Delete Borderline on this one. The OVA may give the game some notability, as it has received some coverage in the Anime Encyc and other anime sources. Will see if my other anime tomes cover it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Delete. A single review and the one Anime Encyc entry for the OVA really isn't enough to be considered significant coverage, and the game itself has no coverage at all. Having walkthroughs isn't notability, as those are not typically third-party sources. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At least one of the walkthrough guides is third-party, as the two are from different publishers (and are different texts). —Quasirandom (talk) 03:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For what it's worth Chris Beveridge from Mania.com reviewed the OVA. --KrebMarkt 14:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the review cited by KrebMerkt. -- allen四names 18:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment One review doesn't amount to the significant coverage needed to establish notability. 64.127.58.192 (talk) 18:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That makes a second review, actually (see above). —Quasirandom (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, but it lack significance. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 20:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because of the reviews, the book coverage [60], and the fact that Google has 834,000 results mentioning it. This lessons to 352,000 results when the word "hentai" is added. That's still an awful lot of people that have heard of it. Dream Focus 22:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion dicussions — Arbitrary quantity.Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your link is to an essay, which anyone can make, saying whatever they want. They are even lower than the suggested guidelines. All policies have been met, everything else comes down to consensus. Dream Focus 08:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Don't play with words, DreamFocus! You, better than everybody else, know that by giving that link, I said a lot of stuff that might be misinterpreted and look like a retort.
      By giving that link, I expressed my concern that number of Google hits amounts to nothing. My own name brings about sixty three million hits in Google. So, do you conclude that perhaps I merit having an article in Wikipedia? Besides, Google searches different variations of words as well and the phrase "sex friend" may refer to many other things than the subject of the article.
      And as for your so-called source, maybe I'm seeing something different than you see? (Although I doubt it.) Here is a screenshot of what I see: Screenshot of mentioned source on Google Books 1 You call this a source of notability? I am afraid I do not even see a reason to believe the given source is talking about the subject of the article! Fleet Command (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per answer above me. Str8cash (talk) 23:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia: Arguments to avoid in deletion dicussions — Arbitrary quantity.Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [61] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point/relevance of that link? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven comments on eleven different AfDs, inside of 14 minutes? That should indeed be noted well by anyone intending to take that user's input at face value. --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are a mix if keeps and deletes, though, and it isn't as if he is an SPA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not accuse me of improper intentions. I have no opinion toward either keeping or deleting any of the articles, nor disparaging an editor. I merely believe (and I maintain!) that one cannot reach an informed opinion on what to do with an article in such a short time. Rapid drive-by commenting is wrong, especially in AfDs. (inb4 you did the same) --87.79.143.161 (talk) 02:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't think coverage in The Anime Encyclopedia shows notability, as it attempted to cover all anime created up to the point when it was written. I've looked up the most obscure anime I personally know of in it, and all of them have entries. I don't think having an entry in The Anime Encyclopedia shows notability any more than having an entry at Anime News Network's encyclopedia or having an entry at IMDB, both of which are generally agreed not to show notability. Also, I see two reviews mentioned in the discussion above, but I only see one review in the article. Is there a second review that I'm missing? Calathan (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep References sited by Pcap meet WP:N.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hobit (talk • contribs) 21:26, February 25, 2010
- Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions — Per Mr.X statements. In addition, Pcap's sources fail WP:Verifiability, to begin with. Fleet Command (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hobit mentioned why he said keep. He didn't just say per Pcap, but mentioned the references he mentioned. And Pcap's references are notable and verifiable. Click on Google book search at the top of the AFD. Then click on the book in question. Different things load up every time you search, but you'll get a good page eventually. Dream Focus 08:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - And I objected to Hobit. AS for Pcap source, you also re-iterated it above, to which I posted a reply. Fleet Command (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - DreamFocus and Hobit's meta-keep's don't really provide any WP:RS that are convincing beyond some strange re-interpretation of both of their arguments. Where are the Reliable sources that indicate notability? Shadowjams (talk) 11:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Erb? The books cover the topic. Looks like a couple 100 words each. That's not in passing. Multiple, reliable, sources were provided by Pcap. I can see into the books and see the coverage is non-trivial. Thus meets WP:N. Can you explain why you find those books not to be acceptable? Hobit (talk) 13:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Anime Encyclopedia does 1-2 paragraphs on every North America released anime. That isn't significant coverage, and by itself doesn't meet WP:N as the work does specifically act as a listing of ALL anime released North America, not just selected ones. As a general comment, the listing is only in the second addition of the encyclopedia, as the first was released before it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure it covers every anime the authors were aware of, not just anime released in North America. I've looked up anime in it that I am pretty certain never got a North American release. While some anime get longer entries, the entry for Sexfriend is rather short. Calathan (talk) 17:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite. In the introduction, the authors specifically note that they omitted over 1,000 titles, due to length, and gave priority to the titles with English-language releases (and some with Japanese video). (The encyclopedia itself has over 2,000 entries in the first edition, so that's approximately 1/3 cut). To include every known title would have made a book that you'd need a "hoist" to life and would require a "mortgage" to buy (in their words). In particular early and wartime titles (1979 and before), they limited it to just 300 "major" titles to represent the period, except for the World Masterpiece Theater series which they felt worthy of having its own individual listing. They also noted that among the titles released after 1979 that they decided not to include were those "designed to teach English to preschoolers, arbitrary spinoffs of music over recycled footage, and soem of the more transient porn films", as well as "periphery titles" and "stop-motion animation and puppetry" that they felt were not true anime. </sidenote-tangent> :-)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:N doesn't require a discriminating source, just a reliable one that covers the topic in more than "passing" depth. This clearly does. We are supposed to cover all the topics a specialized encyclopedia would cover. That's part of our mission. This is a perfect example of the kind of thing we should cover. That a specialized (and independent) encyclopedia covered the topic means that we should too, especially if there is another RS that does so too... Hobit (talk) 20:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll clarify my original point, which admittedly wasn't very clear. I agree that the Anime Encyclopedia is not enough for notability. The key is Reliable sources (check) that indicate notability (no check). Just being in the book is not notability. Just as being in trade publications of anything else don't indicate notability. If this was a business advertising in a trade publication, or an actor in the IMDB (as someone said above) then people wouldn't be making arguments that the mere mention in a directory's enough. Shadowjams (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The sources don't need to "indicate notability" per se. They need to have "...received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I don't object to you believing that isn't the case here: reasonable people can disagree about significant coverage. I do object to your statement that the sources need to "indicate notability". Coverage is what matters here... Hobit (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe you're wrong. Notability is not just that Reliable sources indicate the source, it's that they indicate notability. That's verbatim in the guideline, and I think it underlines that your approach to this article is not part of the consensus. Shadowjams (talk) 09:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you quote the part that you are referring to in WP:N? I think the vast majority of people disagree with that reading and it certainly doesn't hold up with the historical arguments for WP:N. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now, wait a second Hobit; you don't need to argue on the notability of the subject yet: The source which you are arguing about fails WP:V, let alone WP:RS. This source is so deeply flawed I argue that it is not even talking about the subject of the article. Yes, the phrase "sex friend" appears in it but it is hard to tell in what sense the phrase is used. Fleet Command (talk) 10:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

erb? We've got two books and an encyclopedia article. I don't think WP:V is at issue. Hobit (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, hobit. You DO NOT have two books! All you have is two dubious Google Books links. You have not read the actual books. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear from the cover that one is primarily about the topic. Further, others have indicated the contents of the book (walk-throughs). Finally, I don't need to have the books, there is no such requirement. I just have to be fairly certain that there is significant coverage that meets WP:N. Two books, an encyclopedia entry, and reviews by reliable sources are so far over the bar I'm not sure what real basis there is for discussion about deletion at this point. Hobit (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Such "pretty clear"ness is unacceptable per WP:V: All you have is a couple of Google Books link which you cannot use to verify the source. We all know that Google often finds similar terms. In addition, "sex friend" is such a generic term which can be used to refer to other things than the subject of the article. All you have is what I call a Weasel Source: A source that gives the allusion of notability but cannot be verified. Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ As I've mentioned above, I don't think coverage in The Anime Encyclopedia counts as non-trivial coverage as it covered every anime known to the authors, and the entry for Sexfriend isn't longer than most of the others. All I'm seeing for non-trivial reliable source coverage is the single review from Mania.com. Calathan (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to Keep based on the additional coverage in Animeland. Calathan (talk) 05:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Could you point out the part of WP:N that indicates that broad coverage of many topics makes that coverage of each of those topics trivial? The context of the information (stand-alone or an entry in a huge encyclopedia) isn't relevant to WP:N. Put differently Wikipedia "Notability" is quite different than the English word of the same name. Think of them as homonyms... Further, we have a goal of covering the material that any specialized encyclopedia would cover. This is clearly such a topic... Hobit (talk) 20:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its not that being in a book that covers other anime makes its coverage of this anime trivial. Instead, I'm saying that this coverage is trivial and just being in a book doesn't change that to make it non-trivial. Sexfriend only got about 1/6th of a page, and what little coverage the anime got was clearly not because the authors of The Anime Encyclopedia thought it was in any way notable, but because they were trying to cover a very large percentage of all anime that has ever been made. Calathan (talk) 22:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that you and I disagree about if a couple hundred words on the topic is "trivial coverage" or not. The definition of "in-passing" is in the eye of the beholder. I don't think 200 words in an encyclopedia is "in-passing" and you apparently do. That's fine. But again, WP:N states that non-trivial coverage is what is needed for meeting WP:N. That would be true even if the authors stated that they felt this topic isn't notable. Their opinion on the matter doesn't make a difference, it's their coverage. Wikipedia notability and the English word "notability" are two different things. One is "worthy of note" the other is "has been covered in multiple reliable sources" Hobit (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do want to point out that two whole books have been supplied solely about this topic. They aren't in English, but that's not a requirement. We are arguing about a molehill in the shadow of a mountain.Hobit (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked into the two book links provided by Quasirandom, though there is a limit to what I can tell about them since I can't read Japanese. The second one is mentioned in the Japanese Wikipedia article for Sexfriend, but it was listed in the section that seemed to be for official merchandise. I'm pretty sure it is an official artbook (not a strategy guide), and I don't think it is independant of the subject. However, the first of the two books looks like it might be a strategy guide as he says, which might show notability. Can anyone here actually read Japanese to tell for sure? Calathan (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One book is a strategy guide covering 21 different games in the genre. The other book is more interesting; while it does contain a lot of art, as suggested above, it also contains interviews with the voice cast and creators, which suggests there is more than enough coverage there. I'm not sure if one or the other of these books is first-party, but I'd say that coupled with the Mania.com review, we have two significant sources suggesting notability. Keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doceirias (talk • contribs)

Why is everyone ignoring that in addition to the Anime Encyclopedia coverage, we have a review from Mania.com for the OVA? (And yes, that's a very reliable source -- one of the premier review sites for anime and manga). —Quasirandom (talk) 16:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of which Beveridge got questioned on his hentai reviewing habits on Anime News Network's podcast. --KrebMarkt 17:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The real question is how much depth do these sources cover the topic? If they provide no more than a basic plot summary, then they are too trivial to be counted towards significant coverage. A walk-through, no matter how detailed, is just one form of "plot summary". I don't know how much depth The Anime Encyclopedia gives, so I don't know if it merely gives a plot summary or covers it in any depth. The review does analyze the OVA, giving the review depth. However, by itself, it is not enough to constitute significant coverage. Until someone more fully describes the The Anime Encyclopedia entry, I would have to side with a weak delete. —Farix (t | c) 03:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The real answer is: Not as much that fills an infobox. Fleet Command (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Of course, I meant facts. You know that walkthroughs do not count as valid contents for Wikipedia (per WP:NOTGUIDE), right? Fleet Command (talk) 08:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It appears as if you are claiming to have read these books. Is that the case? Hobit (talk) 13:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - "These" is wrong. I only have read the one which I rejected per WP:NOTDIR. (Actually had it read to me by girl.) The other, whose Google Books' link I rejected per WP:V, no. That's why I'm rejecting its Google Books' link per WP:V. (Otherwise, I might have assessed it properly.) Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't think anyone's suggesting that the article be made into a guide. We're suggesting that the guides are independent publications on the subject of the game, and indicate notability; the one sounds like it contains information related to the production that could be valuable in improving the article. Unless there's an invisible line in WP:NOTGUIDE that says a guidebook can't be used as a source, I don't really see what point you're trying to make. Doceirias (talk) 03:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Excuse me? Is it not obvious that the content of the walk-through cannot be used as a source for anything but for some general information and details of how to complete the game? Well, that kind of information we do not want. (WP:NOTGUIDE) As for what we want, this certain walk-through contains nothing to help verify notability and hence cannot be used as an excuse for preventing deletion of an article which does not establish its notability. This walk-though only shows that an author loved the game. Fleet Command (talk) 19:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - As I said above, one of the books is probably just a walkthrough and not much use, but the other one clearly contains production information and interviews with the staff, which would certainly be sourceable for legitimate expansions of the article. Doceirias (talk) 22:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Won't vote per my bias against hentai OVA in general. ~~In my opinion this one score only 1.5 when 2 is required for a keep vote.~~ Edit see below Gwern's vote --KrebMarkt 10:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever that means. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 28 February 2010 (GMT)

Keep. I've done my usual CSE search cleanup; the first 2 and a half pages of hits satisfy me. The various Japanese books and sources and the French Animeland article are just icing on the cake. --Gwern (contribs) 19:27 28 February 2010 (GMT)
- For those who wonder what Gwern is writing about, see French AnimeLand Special Issue #9: Hentai summary. Sexfriend has an article in it thus i'm updating my score to 2.5 so it should be given a pass. Note that i won't waste money purchasing that special issue for the sake of getting that review even if a someone offers me a discount. --KrebMarkt 20:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Between the Anime Encyclopedia coverage (which as Collectonian notes is indeed selective), the Mania review, and the Animeland review, we've got enough coverage to demonstrate the OVA is notable, and the Japanese sourcebook mentioned above proves there is real-world info about the original game to develop this into a potentially meaty article. All of that, without even mining Gwern's additional sources, adds up to a keep. —Quasirandom (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article is supported entirely by primary and tertiary sources. The reviews are primary sources (like a witness to a car accident), and the encyclopedia is a tertiary source. It also sounds like it received the same coverage as most of the other entries in the encycl, which would reduce its notability. Since notability cannot be established with secondary sources, (nobody bothered to write any kind of article that did more than merely acknowledge its existence and do what it does with every other thing of its kind) I say delete. Now that I think of it, there's only one review? Aren't there more than one review sites for stuff like this? —MutantPlatypus (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviews are secondary sources unless i'm mistaken and there are two reviews one on a French paper magazine Animeland and a second one from Mania.com. --KrebMarkt 07:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reviews from publications that focus specifically on Anime are primary sources, I think. I checked the Mania source, and it doesn't focus specifically on Anime, so I think its alright. One source isn't much, though. What kind of encyclopedic content can you have? According to WP:NOT, its not a plot only description of fictional works, so what you've got for a plot summary is fine now, and the only other thing you could have is something on the critical reception of it and maybe a "making of" section. (See Lord of the Rings for an example of an article on a fictional work) The French source given just seems to be a summary of what's in edition "#Q" of the magazine, and has nothing on Sexfriend itself. Can you quote anything from a copy of the French magazine?
  - Further, WP:CORP: "Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability." MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are definitely misunderstanding the concept of a primary source. A primary source in this case would be one from the creators of Sexfriend (e.g. the companies that made the game or anime). Animeland is a secondary source, and is on the list of sources at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Online_reliable_sources that have been discussed by that wikiproject and determined to be reliable. Calathan (talk) 00:18, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but you haven't refuted (what I believe to be) my main point: This topic isn't notable enough. Coverage in a couple of publications specifically about anime don't warrant coverage in a general encyclopedia. Especially if the coverage in those other publications seems to be "in passing", i.e. they gave it the same amount of attention as they did the vast majority of their other items. And super especially if it was only reviewed by two in the entire world. Wikipedia isn't about covering anything and everything ever put on the internet or in print. MutantPlatypus (talk) 01:05, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

i think you'll find that publications about anime as just as valid as other publications for sourcing information and providing notability. Yes the degree of coverage plays a part, but you are trying to tell us they can't prove notability which is completely incorrect.Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn This did use a WP:BEFORE. I honestly couldn't find anything. Also, is this what it takes to get anyone to dig up sources anymore? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 12:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mashup (video)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced since 2/07. Full of weasel words, thin on sources, heavy on examplefarming. No sources found to verify content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources: Wired Magazine documents the career of a video mashup artist, Movie City News does an extended article on video mashups and their rise to popularity, and MediaShift explores the legality of video mashups. Plus hundred of regular English uses across sources both traditional and new establish it's moved past "neologism" and entered the English language properly. With respect to TenPoundHammer whose AfD work I hugely respect, this could have used a WP:BEFORE. - DustFormsWords (talk) 06:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Quite notable concept. Powers ^T 12:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced Internet kiosk

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Only search results I could find were download sites. Bsadowski1 04:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pcap ping 18:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Race 2. I will create, and if necessary protect, a redirect from this title to Race (film) with a commented-out note about the incubated version, in order to avoid the danger that while this is in the Incubator a new article gets started, which might lead to complications requiring a history merge. JohnCD (talk) 18:39, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Race 2

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable future film that completely fails WP:NFF. Not enough significant coverage in reliable sources to warrant disregarding the future film guidelines, and is, at best, in "pre-production" that isn't due to even maybe begin production for another month or two (said claim being completely unsourced). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy or Icubate this sequel to a notable Indian film, without prejudice for return in a few months. Production has a lot of coverage.[62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69],[70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78]... Its close to be acceptable per WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL... very, very close. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak KEEP : The movie has been confirmed but has been put on hold. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and userfy because the article fails NFF. Without confirmation of commencement of principal photography, this films (like thousands of other Indian films that have been announced but not filmed) could be in production or pre-production stages for years and never be completed. No prejudice towards recreation should the requirements be eventually satisfied. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If these "thousands of other Indian films that have been announced but not filmed" have the multi-year coverage that meet the instructions of WP:GNG and the caveats of WP:CRYSTAL and if someone writes about them, then we might have discussions about these other films at other AFDs should they occur. Better to remain focused here on this one specific film and the coverage this one specific film has received. Deletion Policy offers options to outright deletion for material that has potential for improvement but that is not quite ready. One of options is WP:INCUBATE. That said, and per WP:DEL, I am modifying my comment above, as Incubation encourages wider input toward improvement and return to mainspace, while Userfication does not. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Incubation of material sounds just fine to me. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 13:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Race (film) until this gets off the ground. THF (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, and considering the amount of coverage this topic has received as shown above, perhaps a merge of some content to Race (film)#Sequel with a redirect set while the original article is Nowiki'd while at Incubation and being improved... and only to return when expamded and sourced to show meeting WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most Wanted (2011 film)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Future film not in production. Fails WP:NFF ttonyb (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable film that fails WP:NFF and has no significant coverage in any reliable sources to warrant having an article this far in advance. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice toward recreation. It was announced in 2009,[79][80] and currently has a little bit of press, [81] but even that is speculative. Needs a lot more to meet WP:NFF and WP:CRYSTAL. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lol who is this guy that keeps making all the bollywood pages? Str8cash (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nota bene: [82] --87.79.143.161 (talk) 00:09, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, once the movie has reliable sources this will likely pass afd. Right niow wiki is not a crystal ball and the last sentence makes a nice touch. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:02, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. I withdraw the nom (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

International Federation of Little Brothers of the Poor

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN company, no results on G News CTJF83 GoUSA 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found 4 Google News archives references using this search. The French and German Wikipedias have articles at fr:Petits frères des Pauvres and de:Les petits frères des Pauvres which can be used to expand this one. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I personally don't think 4 news hits in 9 years qualifies as significant coverage. CTJF83 GoUSA 03:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Significant Coverage refers not to the volume of coverage, but to it's depth. Quoting from the General Notability Guideline: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail" and "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also can't read the source Eastmain provided, and can't tell how much the subject is covered. CTJF83 GoUSA 04:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Eastmain and WP:SBST. Gosox(55)(55) 03:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't speak French or Spanish, but I've thrown the some of the articles discovered in the search by Eastmain into Google Translate to get a better idea of what they're saying. Source 1 [83] (translated here: [84]), appears to only contain a passing reference to the International Federation of Little Brothers of the Poor (FIP). However, source 2 [85] (translated here: [86]), contains whole paragraphs talking about who the FIP are and giving some coverage of their history. This is definitely significant coverage. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 04:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The consensus below is that the sources available are insufficient to support an article. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nikalas Catlow

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Sorry, but my concerns remain. It's essentially an unsourced BLP (for 3+ years) as all of the semi personal details have zero referencing, and I cannot find sources to verify the facts - which is obviously against the basic principle of WP:V. As I said in the PROD nomination, this individual lacks notability in accordance with WP:BIO (example search findings). Jamie S93^❤ 02:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- I'll point out first that at least some of the personal information can be verified at Catlow's own website (look under the biography section). And he does seem to have illustrated a good number of books. However, I can only find stuff by him- not stuff about him in independent sources. Reyk _YO! 11:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The only reason we are here is that there is the BLP Unsourced flap going on. I added a reference and removed this from the BLP unsourced category and removed the PROD. Also i note another editor has added a different reference. It appears to me that the author is notable. It is highly verifiable that the author has authored many books. There are no apparent possibilities of damaging BLP slander or whatever in place. Best to leave the article with a few "expansion" or "refimprove" type tags, and let it be developed. Perhaps a good statement to the Talk page, giving guidance. It would then be likely that the subject or fans of the subject would eventually find the tags and the guidance and develop the article. I have had experience with one or two Wikipedia article subjects, who have little clue at first what is needed for proper referencing in a Wikipedia article. But when asked, they can pull out plenty of newspaper coverage. Here, no one has attempted a proper newspaper literature database search to find book reviews, etc. And even if someone had, there would still likely be proper references that the subject or someone close to the subject could find. Tag it for improvement, and KEEP. --doncram (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And how long are we supposed to wait until it's improved? Why do we keep poorly-sourced biographies lacking in notability around indefginitely? Improve it now if you want it kept. Tagging it for improvement is used too much as a get-out-of-jail-free card; we all know that article improvement tags do not mean the article will be improved any time soon. Substantiate your comment with more than a single reference and prove the notability exists before voting. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have found the following pages that contain biographical information about Catlow (in addition to the self-authored bio): [87], [88]. Neither of these pages contain anything more than the most cursory coverage of the man himself, and we are still left in a position where the only source containing any sort of significant coverage about the author is one he has written himself. Not only is the reliability of this source questionable because it is self-published, but because it is self-published it is not sufficient to establish notability under the general notability guideline.. Furthermore, I would point out the 4 indicators of notability for creative professionals at WP:AUTHOR:

The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.

The article as it currently stands does not even make a claim to any of these, and I have not discovered any references that do for this author.

Completely setting aside the current debates about unreferenced BLPs (as I believe we should do until the matter is resolved), this article still has verifiability issues, and certainly fails both the general notability guideline and the notability guidelines for authors. -- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 02:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing to indicate that subject meets WP:GNG.--Pink Bull 02:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Closed by nominator - Issues have been addressed. Shadowjams (talk) 02:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FCS/BCT unmanned aerial vehicles

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/FCS/BCT unmanned aerial vehicles

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This page has copyright / sourcing concerns but they're not blatant enough for CSD. Specifically, some sections have verbatim copies of what appear to be non-public sources. In either case, they're not sourced.

For instance, http://www.ndu.edu/library/docs/crs/crs_rl32888_28apr05.pdf is quoted extensively, as is https://www.fcs.army.mil/downloads/pdf/ClassIBlock0_UAS_09-9077.pdf

Some of those are public sources, which obviates the copyright problem, but they're completely unsourced as per WP:PLAGIARISM. I would source it, but I'm unsure if there are non-public sources, or if they can be rewritten. Shadowjams (talk) 02:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The source issue of the Class 2 & 3 has been addressed. The Class 4 UAV text was merged to here from Class IV article when it was canceled and the Class 1 is an abrieviated version of Class I UAV. Anything else? username 1 (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, tendentious POV fork. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change exaggeration

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a neologism and essentially a POV fork of climate change controversy. The only sources which use this term as it is used here are some blogs and some partisan sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 02:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? The article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com. Why would you say the article only cites blogs, when it doesn't cite any blogs, and it does cite four reliable, non-blog sources? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is well sourced and represents a legitimate viewpoint. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:36, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is needed in order to balance out Climate change denial. Also, the article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com Grundle2600 (talk) 02:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- There are other ways to balance it; do it there, for one. See wp:neo
Delete per nom. Could be traited with one line of text in the climate change controversy article. --McSly (talk) 02:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1 line? really? How are you going to handle treatments of the IPCC exaggerations along with other science problems as they arise, plus over the top treatments in the popular press in one line? Given that climate change controversy is weighing in at 127k, normal process would be to be breaking out sections such as climate change exaggeration into their own pages and not adding more material (and the phenom deserves much more than one line) over there. TMLutas (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"per nom"? What are you talking about? The article does not cite any blogs. The article does cite U.S. News & World Report, Reuters, The New York Times, and gallup.com. Why would you say the article only cites blogs, when it doesn't cite any blogs, and it does cite four reliable, non-blog sources? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google scholar has 66,500 hits on the term. This AfD is *very* premature. I think that given the number of hits on the term, simply asserting that this is a neologism is insufficient. At worst, the undeveloped level would deserve incubation but I don't think we should even do that unless there's something more than naked assertion here. TMLutas (talk) 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out below, you are not searching correctly. If I search Google scholar for telephone miami dog jesus I get 11,500 hits, however the exact phrase "telephone miami dog jesus" understandably comes up with nothing. "Climate change exaggeration" also bring sup nothing. Hopefully this information will cause you to rethink your vote, otherwise it is based on a falsehood. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Next week on Wild Wacky Wikipedia Deletion Debates®: Telephone Miami Dog Jesus Z S 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that I was sloppy, but subsequent search on climate change alarmism with quotes yields enough actual scholarly articles that keep and name change might be a better solution. Another thing to look at is that people on both sides of the climate debate are improving the article. Old !votes to delete should be taken with a grain of salt, such as WMC's as he's improving the article as well. Unless, that is, he and others are vandalizing it to try to sway the AfD in which sanctions would be a better response. TMLutas (talk) 19:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith and don't attempt to discredit fellow Wikipedia editors' opinions without good reasons. Even if you're right and some of them did change their previously stated positions, they already know the location of the Edit button and are free to use it whenever they like. — Rankiri (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As somebody who has been separately accused on this discussion of bad faith, I'm sensitive to the question. The plain fact is that there are a remarkable number of edits for an article that is AfD by people who have !voted to delete. Why ever would you do that except as an implicit admission that there's something there worth editing? That's relevant to this discussion and reason for the grain of salt comment. Since this is also on article probation because of significant past sabotage of articles relevant to this topic, the subject of hostile edits and sabotage aren't beyond the pale in my opinion. TMLutas (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork and unsubstantiated neologism. People on all sides of all issues exaggerate all the time; there's nothing to suggest that this particular pair of exaggerations comprise an entity. PhGustaf (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would you also support deletion of Climate change denial for those same reasons? Grundle2600 (talk) 02:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) Just as Climate change denial constitutes an entity, from the "denialist perspective" this lemma does comprise an entity. Joepnl (talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as POV fork. If done properly (search for the term, not the individual words), Google Scholar has no hits at all. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the subject of climate change exaggeration, not the phrase "climate change exaggeration." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have not shown that to be a notable topic. And TMLutas search above is worthless to support the notability or sourceability of the topic. His search returns e.g. "[...]climate change and other scientific matters. [...]These problems are often clearly inspired not by any inclination to exaggerate" as the very first hit. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article states that a Gallup poll shows that 41% of the population believes that the news media exaggerates the effects of climate change. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That hardly constitutes "significant coverage in multiple reliable sources" (WP:GNG).04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Keep it's premature to delete. It's a notably growing topic with many scientific and especially political source examples for quotations. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 02:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Though it might be renamed to Climate change alarmism (52000 hits) being the exact opposite of Climate change denial. I've heard our (Dutch) Minister of Environment claiming on national TV that "the world might come to an end within 30 years". This highly educated person wasn't talking about hungry polar bears but an actual "end of the world" which even the IPCC would deem ridiculous. This psychological phenomenon of people making outrageous claims in the area of climate change they must know aren't true certainly deserves a lemma. I guess in other areas it's called suspension of disbelief but that would probably violate WP:OR :). (also amazed that this article got listed here within 16 minutes.) Joepnl (talk) 02:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the "exact opposite of climate change denial" The opposite of climate change denial would be "climate change acceptance" not climate change exaggeration. Polargeo (talk) 08:57, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the opposite of "nothing to worry about" is "we're all gonna die". Joepnl (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whether you believe the topic to be important or existent is irrelevant; until the topic itself is given substantial coverage in reliable sources and can be written in a NPOV way, there should not be an article on it. And Stephen Schulz's Google Scholar search seems to indicate that no such sources exist. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Climate change alarmism does so if that's your problem please strike your "Delete" and create a proper redirect page.Joepnl (talk) 04:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those are actually about the topic of "climate change alarmism" as a whole, and are not fringe pieces trying to discredit the scientific consensus on global warming? — DroEsperanto (talk) 16:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a typical heads I win, tails you loose argument. You would define any source critical of alarmism as a fringe piece for the mere fact that it would inherently have the heretic opinion that the effects of climate change (or man's contribution to them) are smaller than "consensus" says they are. Let's, for the sake of argument, assume that the IPCC is exactly right, and its reports comprise nothing but the truth. Undoubtedly there are many people saying that the IPCC makes claims that are too strong and a nice article already describes the situation on that side. It is also undoubtedly true that there are notable people making notable statements that go beyond what the IPCC is saying. This article (though I would like it to be titled "climate change alarmism") would be exactly the same as the article on denialism. It should list politicians, movie makers, etc. claiming things that are not backed up by any science, and I trust you and the rest of the community will make it clear that many accusations of alarmism made by the "fringe people" are not backed up by science, whereas some are. I really don't see why this article could not blossom into a very nice, perfectly neutral place where people like you can refer to when someone says "Al Gore is lying about X" where all those false accusations are rebutted. It is not the mere existence of an article that constitutes a POV. If it did the existence of Climate change denial is indeed an example of an article that should be deleted as well, which I would strongly oppose. Joepnl (talk) 03:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note - It would be better named "Global warming..." rather than "Climate change..." given the structure of our Global warming and Climate change articles. Shadowjams (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought about that before I created the article, and since Global warming denial redirects to Climate change denial, I wanted it to follow the same pattern. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it's merely a label applied to a term. Belongs on Conservapedia for "truthiness", but not on any reputable site. User: TeamZissou but not signed-in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.33.101.198 (talk) 03:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Warning This user has vandalized the article by removing all the sources, and adding multiple unsourced claims which make the article look ridiculous. Does that invalidate their vote for deletion? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mu, because this isn't a vote Z S 00:59, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An ill-advised, hastily-written, and poorly-timed entry into the growing global warming topic area, doing little more than inciting the battlefield mentality. Obvious POV fork of exiting content, as noted by SA and others. That the author in his keep vote cites a "The article is needed in order to balance out..." rationale is of concern though, as this is a fundamental misunderstanding of [WP:NPOV]] that Grundle has repeated again, and again, and again, and again across the project, leading to an ArbCom sanction, several blocks, and a topic ban. It would seem that the later needs revisiting, as it was last up on the admin boards just 3 weeks ago. Tarc (talk) 03:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you also favor deleting Climate change denial? Grundle2600 (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a clarification of my topic ban. Grundle2600 (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That note from Thatcher is from last June. You're put on a lot of mileage since then, as can be seen in several subsequent AN and AN/I's, the most recent of which I linked to above. It is quite frankly an impossibility to separate just "the science" from politics, especially in the present in the middle of all this battleground mentality around the topic area. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this page was about discussing articles that should or should not be deleted. There are enough other pages especially designed to discuss individual users. Assuming good faith, I guess you didn't have Grundle in mind when you decided to write "Delete". Joepnl (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I completely had grundle in mind, as this is the same sort of problem we've had to deal with him over the last year; a critical misunderstanding of WP:NPOV that results in disruptive article creations such as this. Tarc (talk) 03:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is the misunderstanding of NPOV and why would this article be disruptive? Joepnl (talk) 03:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Based on the comments above there appears to be sufficient reliable material to expand the article and it provides a reasonable counter-point to balance Climate change denial and bring things to a more WP:NPOV. --GoRight (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aren't articles supposed to be internally NPOV? We're not supposed to balance one article against another one. If that's the case, why don't we just go the whole hog and balance wikis against one another? That way we could let Conservapedia collect all the trash. It would certainly save some time here ... --PLUMBAGO 10:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course they should be internally NPOV. Nothing I said suggests otherwise. The information here is the logical counter-point to the denial article that has already been allowed to exist. These articles, Climate change denial and Climate change exaggeration are both properly viewed as specific content forks from Climate change controversy and they should be treated as such. NPOV applies at the Climate change controversy level and any content forks which are related to it. --GoRight (talk) 15:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, perhaps Climate change exaggeration does have a place in this world — we need a name for the climb-down strategy of climate change contrarians when they can no longer deny the blindingly obvious. At that point, outright denial will gradually slip into "not-as-bad-as-you-said-it-would-be", and political point-scoring can continue as normal (cf. here). Probably a bit early just yet though, but worth bearing in mind for the future. --PLUMBAGO 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I guess Orwellian support is better than no support at all. At a time when the IPCC has had to clime down from a number of exaggerations (Himalayan glaciers, N. African agriculture) you can't conceive that some on the alarmist side of the discussion might be exaggerating. This is double plus ungood. TMLutas (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What really would be doubleplusungood was if we started representing changes (actually tweaks) in relatively minor angles of the IPCC climate science as being highly significant (per WP:UNDUE). Further, presenting a heterogeneous morass of competing scientists as a faceless, monolithic Big Brother is kind-of amusing given that truly faceless and monolithic corporate interests (Big Brothers?) are demonstrably engaged in Minitrue activities. --PLUMBAGO 10:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GoRight. Agree with Joepnl that article might better be named Climate change alarmism. Pete Tillman (talk) 03:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just created that article. Joepnl (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I nominated it for speedy deletion. Wait for the outcome of this discussion. Copy-and-paste also has other problems - in particular, you have no valid attribution information per CC-BY-SA (your creation comment is probably insufficient now and certainly will be so if this page gets deleted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Any criticisms or errors in IPCC reports can be recovered in articles on the IPCC or whoever; the assertion that any of these errors constitute alarmism or exaggeration is pure original research and a fringe POV often propogated by GW skeptics who wish to discredit the AGW hypothesis. Global warming denialism is completely different, as it is a term used in scholarly literature and a cultural phenomenon in its own right. Also, the USNEWS piece is a blog. Also, delete Global warming alarmism. — DroEsperanto (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article says that a Gallup poll shows that 41% of the population believes that the media exaggerates the effects of climate change. That's not original research - it's a verifiable fact. The U.S. News & World Report article is labeled "Science News' Science & the Public Blog." That means it's an article, with a "blog" for the "public" to comment on the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 04:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and indef anyone who thinks it should exist. This bullshit is what's wrong with Wikipedia and the people who advocate for this garbage should be removed so people who actually are competent to write on science topics can do so. -Atmoz (talk) 04:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the person who created the article. In response to your comment, I'd like to point out that I have created many other science articles, which have never been nominated for deletion. My userpage has links to them. Some of those articles are even about technologies that were created to reduce the problems of global warming. I am quite competent at writing articles on science. I also happen to believe that manmade global warming is real - but I do believe that its effects have been exaggerated. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 04:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, article should be cleaned up, but this is clearly a valid topic, given the number of sources addressing the topic. It's not original research when we have plenty of sources on the topic. Oppose blocking of supporters; personal attacks are not necessary. Nyttend (talk) 04:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - that's a critic of climate change, which already has its article. -RobertMel (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork. Gobonobo ^T ^C 05:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. Sorry but this is not even close, and those supporting this need to get a lot more convincing than "clearly a valid topic" and the like if they want to avoid deletion. The lead sentence tells us that "Climate change exaggeration is a set of beliefs which overstates the effects of climate change." Really, according to whom? Because if we are going to title an article by a given term we should not be defining it based on the perception of one editor (which is exactly what is happening here, and that's why this is original research). But let's actually look at the references, surely there we'll find reliable sources that define the term "Climate change exaggeration" as we do in the lead sentence. Source one, a US News story, does not have the word "exaggeration" in it (thus it does not back up this phrase) though it does speak to an exaggeration by a climate scientist (this is literally the only source that does). It does not refer to "Climate change exaggeration" (or anything similar) as a term or a phenomenon, it just says one guy made a claim based on little or no data and later admitted it. The Reuters story talks about a simple error, something which was "wrongly stated" and which related to the percentage of the Netherlands under sea level. So it's not an "exaggeration", it's a mistake, and it's not even about climate change, it's about European geography. The NYT article is about an ill-advised slide that Al Gore used to use in his slideshow (the article does not say he was trying to exaggerate), but also about an error by AGW skeptic George Will—i.e. the subject of the articles is errors/exaggerations on both sides, not solely among those who "overstate the effects of climate change" as our "article" says. The fourth footnote is about a poll that says many people think global warming is exaggerated. Surveys also say that many people think football is too violent, American Idol is not worth watching, and Disneyworld is more fun than EuroDisney (or is it the other way around?), but we don't have articles on those things, I guess because public opinion polls are not a good basis for an article, despite Grundle's repeated claims above. The fifth footnote supports one of the most ridiculous, WP:OR/SYNTHish sentences ever, as it points out that kids are scared of global warming (and from that the reader should, I suppose, conclude that the exaggerators are evil, scaring the kids!). Obviously it does not establish that "Climate change exaggeration" is some known, discussed phenomenon. Neither do the five total hits on the phrase in a Google News archive search, all of which seem to refer to the NYT article that happens to say "Climate Change, Exaggeration" in its title (compare with over 500 for a search on "Climate change denial"—see the difference?). In short, there are no reliable sources in the article that establish that there is an observed and discussed phenomenon called "Climate Change Exaggeration" (or any similar name). Some people think climate science is exaggerated, of course, but climate change controversy (and probably elsewhere) is a perfectly fine place to discuss that viewpoint. I'm afraid it's unsurprising that this article was written by the same person who gave us the quickly deleted Michelle Obama's arms, among other bits of egregious original research, and hopefully this one will soon go the same way. The !keep comments are completely unconvincing so that seems likely. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the subject of climate change exaggeration, not about the phrase "climate change exaggeration." This old version of my sandbox shows that the article on Michelle Obama's arms was very well sourced - it never should have been deleted. Grundle2600 (talk) 05:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really just go there? Tarc (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well that made me smile! But I think the more pressing need is over at Dolly Madison's bosom. Her décolletage was apparently the talk of the town before those cursed redcoats destroyed it! (the town, not her low neckline). As to this AfD I'm afraid you rather missed my point Grundle, and I already read your comment about what you think the article is about above. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These articles haven't been deleted: Rasputin's penis, Isaac Newton's tooth, Oliver Cromwell's head, and Lord Uxbridge's leg. Grundle2600 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we please just have one AfD where we don't talk about where Rasputin's penis up and ran off to? Let's agree to disagree on whether or not it's in St. Petersburg! But seriously Grundle, you seem to be at the wrong AfD here, though it's fun to remember how you somehow forgot that you created that Michelle Obama's arms article just 14 minutes after you created it. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Original research, no neutral point of view, no redeeming merit. StuartH (talk) 06:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. It's a little raw in it's appearance but that happens quite often in new articles and I'd like to see it given a chance to improve. There should be no lack of sources these days. I see it just added an Anxiety in Children section and from first hand experience with kids from K-5 this is so true. Fyunck(click) (talk) 06:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that section is a disaster. For one thing it completely misrepresents what the article says, since the articles do not remotely say anything about "how global warming exaggeration had effected students," it talks about how the science around global warming has effected students. In fact I'm going to delete that entire section right now because the WaPo article is not about this topic in the slightest and we cannot misrepresent sources like that. And Fyunck, are you really saying that in your experience kids are anxious about "climate change exaggeration?" Because that's what this article is about. I think you are saying they are anxious about climate change, and maybe you (or maybe not) and others think that's unfortunate because they feel the science is exaggerated, but I highly doubt kids are losing sleep over "climate change exaggeration," which is the ludicrous claim made in this article. It's not a matter of being "a little raw," it's that this is not anywhere near being an encyclopedia article. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am saying that children are being psychologically affected by Climate Change Exaggerations. I see it in my extended family and in children I work with. I have seen grade school teachers put on probation for exaggerating to the point of idiocy and the kids going home scared and scarred. I've seen them talk about it on the nightly news. It's a valid topic in today's world and whether one believes the science or not, exaggeration of global warming is happening. And since people are looking it up online it's better if they have a nice neat package right here on wiki where the sources can be checked and everyone can argue to the death what should be included :-). Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wow, what a nice mine field this is. I agree with Bigtimepeace that the opening sentence is a problem, quite a big problem. However, I do believe that "CC Alarmism" is a notable enough term to warrant an article. Unfortunately, if a significant number of people start believing that man-made climate change is a hoax or at least overblown, if newspapers start reporting on it, if right-wing demagogues start making money off of books indicting environmentalists and scientists for said "alarmism," then WP should have an article on the topic. The article doesn't need to be a POV fork: I think it's pretty clear that there are plenty of notable sources stating that plenty of people think that this alarmism exists. That those people in my opinion are idiots (sorry Grundle, excuses Joep) doesn't change the fact of notability. Grundle, I didn't think that the day would ever come that I'd vote with you! How about it? Drmies (talk) 06:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My only concern is that you apologized for calling me an idiot - you should never apologize for saying what you believe is the truth. Grundle2600 (talk) 06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, I think I may have been in the US too long. Take it easy, Drmies (talk) 06:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem, Drmies, is that this article is not designed to be the article in which you are interested—i.e. about the people who think there is alarmism in global warming and what they say. This article is about the supposed fact of "Climate change exaggeration." That's an irremediable problem in my view, and we're better off starting over from scratch if we must and coming up with some alternative title, possibly combining it with something else. But really I do not see why this cannot simply be covered at climate change controversy. We absolutely cannot have an article about every particular belief of a particular group. "Climate change liars" gets about as many Gnews hits as "Climate change exaggeration," and undoubtedly lots of people think these scientists are liars, but that ain't going to be an article any time soon. If you think this need not be a POV fork (as it currently is), you should explain how we are going to make it not be one, otherwise it should be deleted. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I advocated "Climate change alarmism" as a better title. What an article is designed to do--that is a tricky question, but the alarmism is, in my opinion, a notable enough topic, which can cover nuts like Imhofe. Sure, one can argue plausibly that this (kind of) content could be covered in another article also--Climate change denial, for instance--but that in itself is not a reason for deletion, given that, for instance, the Google hits are there. And look at the "See also" section in Climate change denial; one could easily argue that we have too many articles on the topic already. I think I would argue that--and merge the lot of them, including this one, but without singling this one out and beating up on the creator. There's some local warming here, and we all need to cool down some. As to your other (and valid) question, How does one prevent this from being a total POV fork? By careful editing and extensive scrutiny. The latter is certainly there, judging from the article history. That's a start. How this discussion is going to turn out, I don't know, and I'm glad I'm not a closing admin on anything. No one is going to be happy with the outcome. Until then, I'll be squirrel fishing, using one of Rasputin's balls as bait. Drmies (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Seems like a valid article mark nutley (talk) 06:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will ignore that comment unless you provide an actual rationale—"seems valid" is not one. I advise the closing admin to carefully peruse all of these reflexive supports that do not actually make an argument of any kind (there may be some delete !votes like that too). --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

delete blatant POV fork William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though the title is funny, it is inherently biased and the article is a clear POV fork. Sole Soul (talk) 08:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear POV fork. Seems to also be WP:POINTy to complain about Climate change denial. Personally I'd remove climate change denial as well as I think the material about businesses funding opposition can go into the Climate change consensus article without making it unduly bigf or losing the plot. However that something else exists is not a good reason to have this blatant duplicate article with a point of view title. Dmcq (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Comment. Administrators should note that the above "keep" votes from Tillman, GoRight and TMLutas appear to have been votestacked by Grundle2600. StuartH (talk) 10:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On what are you basing this accusation? Please substantiate your charge. --GoRight (talk) 15:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I have requested a response from the user here. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For my part I was NOT canvassed about this AfD. I was informed by Grundle that the new article had been created. The timeline was: Grundle created the article at 01:53, 25 February 2010, he was informing interested parties about the article from 01:58, 25 February 2010 until 02:04, 25 February 2010. This AfD was created by SA at 02:03, 25 February 2010 and he put the template up on the article at 02:09, 25 February 2010. This hardly looks like canvassing for the AfD to me. It is quite conceivable that Grundle wasn't even aware of the AfD until after SA posted the template on the article at 02:09 by which time Grundle had already informed everyone he did about the article. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[89]. — Rankiri (talk) 15:41, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
GoRight is right. Unless I'm missing something, the accusations of impropriety seem unsubstantiated. — Rankiri (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grundle2600 would have known that the article would be immediately nominated for deletion, and selective notification of a partisan audience is a clear violation of WP:CANVAS. Administrators should be made aware of this. StuartH (talk) 16:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So now you are also accusing Grundle of WP:ABF? I believe that the correct approach here is for you to WP:AGF and WP:AAGF in which case Grundle was doing a very reasonable thing, namely he created an article and began to seek out interested parties to help him improve it. You are trying to turn a reasonable action into something nefarious and requiring precognition on the part of Grundle in the process. For me that's a bit thin.

I leave it to the administrators decide but I certainly don't feel as though I was canvassed about this AfD. I only became aware of it because of the template on the article which is the normal process. --GoRight (talk) 16:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also consider it a matter for the administrators to decide, and I don't assume bad faith -- just that with foresight the appearance of impropriety could have been avoided. In the interests of transparency, the fact that several votes on one side appear to be a result of selective notification by the author should be known. With a clear consensus developing, it seems like a moot point anyway. StuartH (talk) 16:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason that I informed those editors about my creation of the article was because I had seen them complaining on talk pages that there was no place on wikipedia where this kind of information could be added without getting erased, and I thought they would like to contribute to the article. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Jeez, I don't even know what to say about this one. I know every en.wp article that's in any way related to a dramatic real-life issue is bound to be pissy and opinionated, but this article just feels wrong. Z S 10:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm sorry--I can't find an entry for your feelings anywhere in the extensive set of Wikipedia guidelines, and I am having a hard time spotting a real argument in your comments. Drmies (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I guess what I meant to say was that the idea of counteracting a biased article with another equally biased article in the opposite direction is fundamentally asinine and leaves us with two crappy articles instead of one decent article. Got to stop debating before bed. Z S 19:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reasons do not have to be stated in terms of policy or gudelines and they don't even have to be covered by them either. The policies and guidelines reflect practice not the other way round. A good cogent reason is better than a pile of badly applied alphabet soup anyday. Dmcq (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Meaningless gibberish when one considers that climate change estimates range widely. "My model's exaggeration is your model's unresponsiveness", etc. That, and it's original research and / or neologism. Another attempt to smuggle denial in by the backdoor? --PLUMBAGO 10:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plainly a POV-fork born of a regrettable battleground mentality. There is nothing that can be put into this article that would not be better covered elsewhere, with balance and more thoughtful context. E.g. Public opinion on climate change, Politics of global warming, global warming controversy, criticism of IPCC AR4 (although the latter is likely to be renamed to something like Reception of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report for clarity and NPOV), etc. --Nigelj (talk) 12:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete This all can be added to one of the many article on GW. Also, I fear this is just going to be another article for arguments and division between editors. The last thing needed is another article to battle over. Add the information to one of the other articles. I also agree with the nom on this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Global warming controversy. The title is probably a valid search term, but it is a poor title for an article as it implies that the climate change predictions are indeed exaggerated, causing all sorts of WP:NPOV problems. The global warming/climate change issue has enough political controversy to justify one article, but hardly enough to justify 6-7 articles, each titled with a different term used by global warming skeptics. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as POV fork, the redirect to Global warming controversy appears reasonable. The items listed include incorrect statements on issues properly covered in the crit of AR4 article, and trivia such as the "Inaccurate description of polar bear photograph" which, interestingly enough, claims that exaggerated statements were made by the same British newspapers that are now publishing exaggerated and incorrect accounts claiming that global warming has been exaggerated. Press wrong is not news. . . dave souza, talk 15:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you likewise consider Climate change denial to be a POV fork that should be deleted? --GoRight (talk) 15:58, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. . . dave souza, talk 16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I may be mistaken, but I think WP:NPOV (a policy) trumps WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (an essay). Also, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS seems to actually be on my side of this issue when it says "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes. The problem arises when legitimate comparisons are disregarded without thought because 'other stuff existing is not a reason to keep/create/etc.'". So, again, is Climate change denial a POV fork that should be deleted in your opinion? --GoRight (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hopeless I don't see any way this ends up anything other than an eternal battleground. I fear that it doesn't matter what the article could be, because it will never be more than POV warfare.--Cube lurker (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be destined for OR, Merge any non-OR into appropriate Climate Change related articles. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For an encyclopedia, the subject of the article appears to be inherently non-encyclopedic. The article starts from stating that Senator James Inhofe frequently uses exaggerated language to describe climate change. To me, it's like having a page on Fishing exaggeration and filling it with "Fisherman Bob Dumbell often claims that he once caught a fish THIS big". And are my eyes are finally failing me, or does the article actually have a subsection called "Exaggerations made by children"? To me, this is ridiculously obvious POV fork. Whatever substantial information it may offer, it's already covered by Global Warming and other related pages. — Rankiri (talk) 16:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can read my comment above, but let's be fair. The Inhofe section was added by someone who's !voted delete as a "blatant POV fork".--Cube lurker (talk)

Still, taking the article's title into account, doesn't that subsection have a right to be there? Considering that this looks like a new rallying point for climate change deniers and antiscientific propagandists, I think that that line is a pretty decent indicator of the article's future development. I also want to mention that by providing misleading criticisms of the subjects fully covered by other pages and having no separate informational value of its own, the article is in clear violation of WP:UNDUE. — Rankiri (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I'm clear that this article is a hopless battleground. But when user "A" creates an article, and user "B" says it's a bad article then adds a bad section, I think it's poor form for user "C" to rail against that section in the AFD without noting the context.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't actually notice that when I posted my first comment and I'm thankful for your correction. What I'm trying to say is that I didn't choose that particular section because of its singularity. The article quotes a nine-year-old boy, for crying out loud. — Rankiri (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. That other section is fair game.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth I removed the section that explained that some kids, shockingly, are not in full possession of the basic facts surrounding global warming and are also prone to exaggeration. Not only was it ridiculous to the nth degree, it was also original research given what the source article actually says. Of course it was soon re-added by the article creator, which is a pretty good indication of where this thing is going in the future. See the first section of the article talk page for more discussion on this "issue." --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete obvious POV fork. Anything useful can be merged into global warming controversy. Vsmith (talk) 16:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as POV fork -- with tines in each POV camp, no less! Or redirect. To pissing contest. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article seems to have begun as an opinion piece based on original research [90] and has continued in that vein. I think Grundle2600 should be encouraged to publish this material on his blog. --TS 18:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Wow! All these comments in favor of deletion make me think it's time to create a new article called Climate change exaggeration denial. Grundle2600 (talk) 20:15, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But that would then presumably lead inexorably to Climate change exaggeration denial exaggeration (people are going way overboard with their talk about how others are in denial about climate change exaggeration!) and I think that's just too long of a title. I feel for the admin who takes on the task of closing this, but at least there is some funny stuff to read along the way! :-) --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh heh heh! Grundle2600 (talk) 00:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If Wikipedia is going to have a climate change denial article, then this seems only fair. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a valid excuse to delete a Wikipedia article. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Let me get it straight. Your answer to your own red herring "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" is WP:OTHERSTUFF? Very constructive. — Rankiri (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per A Quest for Knowledge Str8cash (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing that you just commented on 11 AfD discussions in less than 14 minutes, what particular part of Quest for Knowledge's comment caused you to to believe firmly that the article in question didn't have any problems with WP:CFORK, WP:NEO, and WP:UNDUE? Perhaps it will force me to change my opinion as well. — Rankiri (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is a Wikipedia:POV_fork#Articles_whose_subject_is_a_POV whose subject is a POV itself. Tangurena (talk) 23:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, the article isn't about exaggeration (or alarmism), and hasn't been at any point in its brief history. It rather seems to be a WP:COATRACK for various "embarrassing" items relating to climate change, the first section is almost entirely on errors/inaccuracies that doesn't seem to have been described anywhere as exaggerations (or alarmism) - most (if not all) of these are good faith errors - instead of exaggerations. Now there might be a place for a well-researched article on climate alarmism, if a sufficient number of journalistic or scholarly articles can be found for this topic, but this article doesn't even attempt to move there. Secondly the errors in the first section are almost entirely POV versions of items in Criticism of the IPCC AR4, as well as a few cherry-picks. This is (as others have said) a clear WP:POV fork. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I take issue with that characterization. The Boston Globe reference (since deleted for what I consider quite bad reasons) was all about alarmism and some very sad people who have actually gotten mentally ill based on climate change exaggeration/alarmism. TMLutas (talk) 18:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

KEEPWhile I haev every expectation this will get deleted, not because of its validity or lack there of but because of the shameful bias of those in charge of this website, it should stay. It represents a side of the argument, and while Wikipedia has shown a very real attitude of conspiring to cover up any dissent on this particular subject, I think that's a disgusting attitude to have. While the comments here may annoy the alarmists, that is NO excuse to remove this information. It's already a complete travesty what you do with this webpage with regards to the climate change issue anyway. When this page gets deleted, it'll be further evidence of the focused efforts by some to hide debate and discussion of the climategate fiasco. The exagerattion is real, the hiding of this exagerattion is real, and wikipedia deleting this would be nothing more than an extension of that ongoing cover-up by people with no interest in debate, discussion, but only in pushing their agenda under the guise of truth. It's pathetic, it's damaged my respect for this website, and I hope whomever is making this decision is honest abotu what it means to delete stuff like this. It's not about making sure we have truthful information...it's abotu pushing a political agenda. It's pathetic, and so will you be if you delete this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.128.192.3 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for defending the article. Since you posted without being logged in, I don't know if your comments will offically count toward the outcome of the proposed deletion. But to me, they count very much. Thank you. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the comments don't count, it will be because they're solely the poster's opinion, and cite no policy or objective argument whatever. Discussions about reforming Wikipedia's alleged politics belong somewhere else. PhGustaf (talk) 02:03, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michelle Obama's arms was to delete, even though most of those who favored deletion did not cite any specific wikipedia policies to justify their votes. This old version of my sandbox has the article. People wanted it deleted because they didn't like the article, but most of them didn't cite any wikipedia policies to justify their deletion votes. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I respect the fact that the consensus is leaning in the direction of deletion. I do like the fact that many of those who favor deletion also favor merging some of the info into climate change controversy. I will respect whatever the consensus is. I do not like the personal attacks against me which attribute bad motivations to my creating the article. I read a lot of news articles, and sometimes I think that adding some of those things to the encyclopedia would make it better. The vast majority of the articles that I have created have never been nominated for deleition. It has never been my intent to harm the encyclopedia. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reserving judgement. There does seem to be something to the term "Climate change exaggeration," but the article as written appears to have a little too much synthesis. Of course, that could be because of all the revert warring over various tidbits of information in the article that has occurred. If anyone wants a good laugh, I suggest looking at the edit summaries in the article history and observe the silly squabbling that has gone on since the article was created. Anyway, after this weekend I'll look up the term in Infotrac and NewsStand to see if there is more sourcing to support it. If the article gets deleted in the meantime, I guess we'll have to figure out what to do about that. Cla68 (talk) 11:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, this seems to be a very POV edit. It's unsourced and appears to give a personal opinion. Was the editor who did it someone who should know better? Cla68 (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why you think it is POV? Do you think that exaggerations about climate change is limited to ... well - no one really, since most (in this article) aren't exaggerations - but errors.... it is on the other hand implicit POV to assume that the errors where deliberate and made to cause exaggeration - think about it. Inhofe's statement can be found here btw. In case you are looking for a reference. The statement that it has "no clear meaning" may be considered a bit pointy - but it is unfortunately correct, the article doesn't even attempt to define it. (ie. the change was from a completely original research sentence to a correct but (perhaps) pointy sentence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 12:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that Google Books, Google News, Google Scholar and NewsStand.com show zero results for "Climate change exaggeration", the statement that the expression is "a neologism with no clear meaning" doesn't seem to be all that controversial. — Rankiri (talk) 13:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wondering how much "news" does google news carry? There are news sources that have Climate Change Exaggeration as their headline that google news doesn't seem to find. Fyunck(click) (talk) 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting that Google News' aggregation of headlines has a pro-scientific bias? — Rankiri (talk) 00:47, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the term neologism is really that appropriate..., some believe it is an exaggeration, much like some believe natural selection is an exaggeration or that the risk of cancer associated to tobacco is also an exaggeration. -RobertMel (talk) 17:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was unsourced and was a BLP violation. Anyway, it appears that "Climate change alarmism" may be a more appropriate title. I'll check that in the database next week and start an article on it if appropriate. Cla68 (talk) 23:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked Infotrac and ProQuest NewsStand. For the search term "Global warming exaggeration" or "Climate Change exaggeration" Infotrac produced 48 hits and NewsStand 177 hits. The search terms "Global warming alarmism" and "Climate change alarmism" garnered 136 hits in Infotrac and 299 in NewsStand. "Alarmism" appears to be a better title for an article such as this, but I'm not sure at this point if the term deserves its own article or not. We'll see. Cla68 (talk) 07:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) WP:NEO Don't use phrases like this as names of articles unless they are legitimate terms of art. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This doesn't appear to be a coherent topic for an article, but rather a collection of disparate bits. It's not just a matter of it duplicating bits from other articles, but rather, that by doing so it creates novel synthesis. Guettarda (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Climate change controversy. Uncle Dick (talk) 22:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The title is by itself POV.David Olivier (talk) 00:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear POV fork created by an editor who is topic-banned from this topic area and is currently blocked from editing, so it should never have been created in the first place; see WP:AN/I#Grundle2600 violating his topic ban?. I suggest that the closing admin should take into account the illegitimate circumstances of this article's creation. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The one thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. These are two totally separate issues. If there's justification for keeping the article, it should be kept; if not, not. Quit the personalizing of the issue. And I'm someone who agrees that this should be deleted, and even agrees with you about it being a POV fork. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not the right place for this discussion

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I think all articles on the subject must be listed under a title of Climate change debate because all are theories right now anyways, even Climate change and Global Warming, which are debatable.BLUE _DOG^TN 01:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bit off topic, but I'm curious, is this "only a theory" canard really the road the denialists are going down? Because it's an obvious cue taken from creationists if so. This concurrent resolution is particularly telling on this front. ScienceApologist (talk) 13:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More than a bit off topic. You don't even need the links to WP:FORUM and WP:SOAP, do you? Nor WP:BATTLE. Please don't do that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 18:40, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have to address some of your attacks on me because I just could not let them stand, which are on my credibility. I am both a evolutionist and a creationist because I believe they co-exist together not separate. I do believe that the earth is warming, but the causes are still debatable, whether it is human causes or just a planetary cycle. I think you are confusing scientific theory to scientific law. The law of gravity is law to the Theory on Global Warming, which is still a theory.BLUE _DOG^TN 22:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While it's a common misconception that there is an epistemological progression from hypothesis to theory to law in science, this is plainly not the case. [91]. It's good that you responded because your response exhibits an even greater lack of credibility in discussing this matter. Also, as an astronomer, I can tell you that the "planetary cycle" nonsense proposal for global warming is just that: nonsense. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then, explain to me if global warming will lead to a new ice age or not, which there is one correct answer to this?BLUE _DOG^TN 02:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How is that different from asking (pre dark energy) if the universe will expand forever, converge, or collapse again under your "law of gravity"? Please read scientific theory. The difference between law and theory is not that one more certain than the other. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete pure WP:POVFORK, badly written and conceived, full of WP:OR. Better dealt with in our existing articles, of which there are a multitude. Verbal chat 14:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just a passing comment, some suggest it to be merged. The problem here is that a possible section on exaggeration in a main article is not appropriate. Every critics can be tagged as evidence of exaggeration or alarminsm which means anything in such a section could be retrieved to fit in other sections of the main article on crticism of global warming. Of course, if there is something worth keeping to be merged in the first place. -RobertMel (talk) 16:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not encyclopedic. Points may be valid section within context of an article on climate change scepticism, but don't warrant own entry. --Haruth (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extreme POV fork. In addition, the inclusion of isolated comments from various sources, as selected by editors, is a severe breach of WP:OR by WP:SYNTH. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant POV fork of climate change controversy and related articles which fails to deal with minimalism/denialism but instead merely cherrypicks arguable overestimations of CC. ... Kenosis (talk) 14:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete then hard redirect to Man Bear Pig.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original synthesis/POV fork, with insufficient evidence of notability in its own right to justify an article. Robofish (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - at least change the name, which is clearly POV. The article appears to be pushing a POV. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 05:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 06:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete a clear POV fork Polargeo (talk) 06:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - obvious POV fork, subject covered more neutrally elsewhere. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Current Article Status

comment - NOTE: this article is undergoing active editing and has significantly improved since it was nominated. Article was created on the 25th and has had 56 edits as of this writing from about 20 editors. Early comments on the article's content may have been overtaken by events. TMLutas (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it's lipstick on a pig. Sourcing was never the primary issue, nor was the initial hastily-written prose. The article's subject matter itself is still a neologistic POV fork. Tarc (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The reasoning behind deletion still stands. There's no problem with improving an article to meet Wikipedia standards, but the subject itself is a POV fork which also violates WP:UNDUE. This is little more than an attempt to undermine the clear consensus that the article should be deleted. StuartH (talk) 00:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But consensus is supposed to have no bearing in the eyes of the administration on whether the article is deleted or not. Per wiki deletion policy "These processes are not decided through a head count." It's only the arguments that are supposed to be taken into account by the Administrator deciding this. If said administrator feels there is even minor merit then the article may wind up staying, even if temporarily, to be worked on for continued improvement. I don't see it violating WP:UNDUE at all, since the title is Climate Change Exaggeration you simply want the content to stick to that topic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"...consensus is supposed to have no bearing in the eyes of the administration on whether the article is deleted or not." That's quite wrong, "consensus" (which is guided by policy and argument) is exactly what decides an AfD. To be clear, consensus and a "head count" are not remotely the same thing.

Websters, Consensus - the judgment arrived at by most of those concerned. It is very much a head count. Fyunck(click) (talk) 08:51, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right now the intro is arguably as bad as it's ever been, and there's nothing here that would convince me to change my !vote above. I wholeheartedly reject the implicit notion that earlier comments be disregarded or given less weight because they have been "overtaken by events." The problems are exactly the same, we just have different unsourced sentences ("As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing."...wow) that are incredibly POV and original researchish. I think the consensus as to what to do about this is quite clear, recent edits notwithstanding. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:11, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks like an op ed to me. From the lede: "Climate change exaggeration as science can relate to scientific fraud, or a more innocent confirmation bias. As politics, it can be a cynical attempt to grab power or an innocent belief that exaggeration is a justifiable nudge to get people to do the right thing. There is a psychological dimension as well."' Whoever wrote this isn't even trying to be subtle.

Not an article but an essay, and a POV fork at that. Having seen what the "improvers" have in mind for it, I'm more than ever convinced that it cannot ever become a Wikipedia article. --TS 02:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, rather than improving, the article is only getting worse. It should still be deleted because of the multiple guideline violations mentioned above and the fact that there is no possibility for it to be anything but the lightning rod for editorialising, original research and fringe POV pushing it has turned out to be. StuartH (talk) 05:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bigtimepeace's and TS's comments could also be made about that other AGW-related op ed piece masquerading as an encyclopedia article -- Climate change denial -- and it would have been a wise move to put that one up for deletion at the same time to see whether editors would vote to keep one while voting to delete the other. It would be wonderful to watch the twists and turns of logic as editors sail through the sky, defying gravity. Exercises in hypocrisy are always such a joy to behold. (And, please, nobody throw WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS at me -- this is the kind of argument that that essay suggests is a valid one.) -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change denial (4th nomination). -- JohnWBarber (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. "Climate change exaggeration" is still a wp:neo. Don't use phrases as names of articles unless they are legit terms of art. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:34, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would the proponents of Climate change exaggeration also support Holocaust exaggeration or AIDS exaggeration and if not, why not? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now this is an example of an argument for which WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS was written, IMHO, whereas citing WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a means of introducing a POV bias is not. In other words where a legitimate NPOV concern exists across Apples to Apples articles WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS does not apply, but arguing that Oranges exist in an Apples debate as we see here is clearly not a valid argument for keeping or deleting either way. --GoRight (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It would appear that Godwin's law has finally been satisfied. Time to close the AfD? --PLUMBAGO 20:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism exist as antipoles of Holocaust exaggeration and AIDS exaggeration, I look forward to the debates for why the former should be deleted and/or the latter should be created. Surely JohnWBarber wants to be consistent? Or perhaps this is just an "exercise in hypocrisy" as he has said, presumably without looking in the mirror? -- ChrisO (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for proving the argument that "Climate change denial" is meant to refer to holocaust denial, making it an inherent POV title. And yes, at least in The Netherlands the danger of infection with AIDS has been grossly exaggerated for non-risk categories, presumably to make it not seem a "gay disease". I do think that untruthful propaganda like that deserves an article. It's a bit tasteless to drag the Holocaust into this discussion, but for that there are two articles, Criticism of Holocaust denial and Holocaust denial.Joepnl (talk) 20:44, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting that you should pick on Holocaust denial and not AIDS denialism as the "referent" of climate change denial. In reality, of course, "climate change denial" is about the well-documented phenomenon of denialism as it relates to climate change, just as Holocaust denial and AIDS denialism discuss denialism as it relates to those topics. As you can see from Category:Denialism, there are many more topics - not just the Holocaust or AIDS - where denialism is an issue. You will note there is no Category:Exaggeration. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:AIDS denialism the title of the article is compared to holocaust denial. Strangely enough, nobody ever contested the name of Holocaust denial for having the awful connotation of Aids denialism. Joepnl (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One possibility here is that Climate change denial is a more common phrase than Climate change exaggeration - or that it has reached a certain notoriety that the latter hasn't. In that case, it is wp:n enough for a page. I felt confident !voting to delete this page, and I was about to !vote similarly for denial, but I am not so confident that climate change denial is not a "term of art" so to speak. So I didn't !vote to delete that AfD. Secretly I hope both are deleted, but that's just because I'm a deletionist. ErikHaugen (talk) 00:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cockle Law Brief Printing Company

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company lacking GHits and GNEWS to support notability. Cases they were involved in appears to have been in support of printing cases. Appears to fail WP:COMPANY. ttonyb (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:46, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as WP:SPAM. The sources are pure WP:PUFF: printing a brief in a notable case does not confer notability. THF (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A very specialized print shop. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, printing the briefs in a well-known case is like washing the windows of a well-known building or catering the cast wrap party for a well-known movie. Glenfarclas (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Printing companies can be notable. This article from a reliable source is comprehensive enough on its own to establish notability. You get many ghits (some are duplicates) when you drop the word "company" from your Google News archive search and instead search for "Cockle Law Brief Printing", because the firm's name is sometimes abbreviated to "Cockle Law Brief Printing Co." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article you found is from the Omaha World Herald and got picked up by the Knight-Ridder wire service.[92] This business is in Omaha, Nebraska, where every day's a slow news day, and they like it that way just fine, thanks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If the article was picked up by a national wire service, this is an argument in favor of notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:30, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Only one of the sources has anything that might be called substantial coverage. The guidance from WP:N is that multiple ( two or more) such sources are required. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep as per consensus. Non-admin closure. Warrah (talk) 01:09, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Airplay

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Dictionary definition. Term has unambiguous history and definition. Already on Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (clear) as per above and redirect to Airplay_(band). Definitions don't belong to WP unless there is something substantial about the word. For example, the article Person would seem to be a definition, but it is not, and that is why it is kept. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manishearth (talk • contribs)

Better yet, why not move the band's article to this title? That'd prevent an unnecessary qualifier. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:09, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I meant.. clear the article (blank it) and redirect or reverse redirect.ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 01:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 11:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Move delete and move per 10lb hammer Keep per Davecky, this is a different article now. RadioFan (talk) 12:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Is there anywhere to merge this?~~ It seems an important concept, as most music charts use airplay in part to determine the ranking of songs...for example the Hot Country Songs chart. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:40, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements made by Dravecky. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 16:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We could move Airplay (band) to this page and add a link to wikt:Airplay via {{otheruses}}ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 01:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep as this article describes 'airplay' and its usage far beyond what a simple dictionary definition would provide. Indeed, the Wiktionary entry, in its entirety, is "The amount which a particular song, band or genre gets played on the radio." The article under discussion goes far beyond this simple (and simplistic) dicdef. - Dravecky (talk) 06:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I have added a substantial number of references from around the world to this article since it was nominated for discussion, far exceeding the minimum standards for verifiability and notability, and would invite any editor to review the article as it stands now and consider revising their stand on this article. - Dravecky (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Change my vote to Keep. It's ref'd enough thx to dravecky, if only it could be a bit expanded... ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 12:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the add'l work from Dravecky. Article appears to comply with policy. Well done, that. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep it's not just a word, it's a concept. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as now the article is referenced, thank you to Dravecky. Also agree with AbbaIkea2010 in that it is a concept. I had wanted to keep it before, but did not feel justified when it was unreferenced.—Iknow23 (talk) 05:43, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - well-referenced article on a notable concept. Robofish (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Ross (musician)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems to pretty clearly fail WP:MUSICBIO--basically has toured/recoded with some notable artists which is they case with thousands of musicians. Emphasizes association with Rihanna as particularly notable, but a Google News archive search on those terms reveals nothing. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Of WP:MUSICBIO, I think this one meets Criterion 12. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're misreading the criteria there, note that it says the person must have been the subject of a half-hour or longer show. Ross has apparently performed as a backing musician on some television programs, but that does not pass any of the criteria at WP:MUSICBIO. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:22, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 07:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THF (talk) 13:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Working with other artists doesn't make you inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What TenPoundHammer said. (GregJackP (talk) 15:25, 25 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]
Delete as per nom. --Joe Decker (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete accomplished yes, notable no. AbbaIkea2010 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 01:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Latin America

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Completing nomination for IP, reason given was:

Unreferenced article with no indication of notability. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Tim Song (talk) 00:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename. Many Spanish-language sources are provided on Spanish Wikipedia under the pageant's alternate name, Mister America Latina [93]. --MelanieN (talk) 22:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per MelanieN. I added an expansion/translation request to the article. VernoWhitney (talk) 21:40, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —SpacemanSpiff 02:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:30, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Chalmers

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is non-notable and questionable references within the article point primarily to the subject's own website. Article has been tagged as an orphan for a year now and was previously deleted in October 2008 as non-notable. B.Rossow · talk 03:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources, no real notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There is actually a fair amount of coverage if someone wants to work on the article, which is in pretty bad shape. I found several news paper stories that look relevant and reasonably substantial.[94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100] [101] [102] There are plenty of other passing mentions and so I think that a policy compliant article can be written. I have no interest in reworking the current version though so my keep remains week. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete, per lack of proper sourcing to show notability and BLP concerns. GlassCobra 16:55, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wade R. Meisberger

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article doesn't currently claim any sort of notability, but it used to state that the subject was convicted of murder until this was removed by the subject (and original author of the article). Very few references out there, and while the article used to cite some they were vague in the extreme. Fails WP:BLP1E. Hut 8.5 14:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep/rewrite As the article stands, it doesn't even claim notability and could have been speedied. However this appears to be because all the significant information was removed by someone with a conflict of interest. The person does actually appear to be somewhat notable per Google search, because of his lawsuit (with a co-plaintiff) against a prison policy forbidding inmates to receive porn, soft-porn, and explicit materials. The case is called Wade Russell Meisberger v. State of Indiana. See [news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/aclu/topedon71106cmp.pdf findlaw], CNN, etc. If the subject doesn't want this stuff on Wikipedia, he shouldn't have made himself famous by bringing this lawsuit. --MelanieN (talk) 07:19, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest the lawsuit doesn't look notable either. Even if it was notable the article would have to be about the lawsuit and not him. Hut 8.5 00:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but an article on the legal issues mentioned above might be okay. I don't think articles on criminals are a good idea generally. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with User: ChildofMidnight that an article on the legal issues may be more appropriate. This subject is at most notable for only one event.--Pink Bull 03:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 12:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Winterton

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Winterton is not a professional athlete, so he is not notable because of his cycling. His being president of the ZCF is also not notable, since he has not been in the news because of that. The article shows no notability, and I could find no external sources that show notability. I PRODded this article, but apparently it has been PRODded before (and revived?) so it has to see the AfD-procedure.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not significantly notable. -RobertMel (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep' Head of a notable organization, but the article requires external references. Doc Quintana (talk) 16:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No reliable sources are cited in the article and I can't find any via google. The news archive search came up completely empty (he has a namesake in Utah) and the websearch produced nothing but directy listings, user created content, and wikipedia mirrors. Until and unless independent, reliable sources covering the subject in sufficient detail to support an article can be found, it should be deleted. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:51, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was NO CONSENSUS Default to Keep Mike Cline (talk) 03:37, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

==October 26 1993==

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails notability criteria - lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. One passing mention is hardly significant. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 21:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work is pretty well known and easily meets the notability criteria. It has been referenced in numerous non-trivial contexts (I will get some more of them added to the page over the coming few days.Experianzer (talk) 22:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article is pretty much an orphan, and I question its notability. 209.196.230.72 (talk) 00:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This work meets wikipedia guidelines for notability but the article requires some serious attention!--Diminster (talk) 08:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CTJF83 GoUSA 01:26, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of secondary sources. Keep in mind that the only two "keep" !voters have just argued WP:ITSNOTABLE without anything else, so they're just talking the talk. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 02:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It has just been created a few weeks ago. Perhaps more time should be given? Bejinhan Talk 04:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chesapeake House

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A roadside service area doesn't establish notability absent something more, and I see no indication of that. Shadowjams (talk) 01:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At this time, the article is absolutely deletable, but I believe sources could possibly be found. I've tagged it for rescue, since with a robust article on Maryland House, its more southerly sibling, I think it's distinctly possible that we can bring this one back. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:55, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the Maryland House article as well. My only concern would be that sources have some indication of notability, rather than just references from road atlases. Shadowjams (talk) 02:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I can find tons of sources addressing this apparently super busy major rest stop. Why nominate brand new articles for deletion like this? It doesn't hurt to give the author a few weeks.--Milowent (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, because I think the general premise, a rest stop on a highway, is probably by itself not notable, and a few weeks doesn't change that. It's a strange position to suggest that I allow an editor to invest more of his or her time in an article before its deletion, if the fundamental reason won't change.
Would you mind posting one of those sources? I would change my mind if my original estimation was wrong. Shadowjams (talk) 05:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly posted one that says it is one of top 5 busiest rest stops in the country, among other facts (from Baltimore Sun)--Milowent (talk) 05:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Having done a little research and added some sources to the original article, I believe that there could be an argument that the WP:N requirement is fulfilled by the unique legal position of the rest-stop and the impact that its creation has had on the debate about the commercialisation of such places in the US.ManicSpider (talk) 05:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to the work of some wonderfully dedicated editors, I believe we now have enough sources to clear notability. Now we just need more... SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the original author, I feel I must recuse myself from voting here. I created the article borrowing largely from the existing article on Maryland House. If this article is indeed voted for deletion than I would argue for the deletion of Maryland House on similar grounds. However, I figured editors more knowledgeable or with time to do research on the subject could expand on the new article. I edit Wikipedia largely from work when I'm on lunch or other breaks, and my job obviously takes precedence... I don't really have the time to do the research even though I'm interested. I thank those of you who found sources for including them in the article. --Tckma (talk) 17:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per SchuminWeb. Article rescue for the win. Agree that more would be nice, but it's a very good start. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:07, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having been expanded and sourced, the article now clearly establishes that this rest stop is notable. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 19:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. The two sources that were attached to the article are extremely trivial. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Block

AfDs for this article:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An executive producer and showrunner for short-lived non-notable shows in a short-lived tv channel. Article reads like a promotional bio.

None of the generally accepted criteria for specific or general notability are seen, no awards, no recognition in particular for his work etc.

I have no doubt this guy exists and has worked in media, but wikipedia is not for everyone who has an IMDB entry - it is for notable people, who this person certainly doesn't seem to be. Cerejota (talk) 01:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, notice how little improvement there has been to the article since "no consensus" in 2007. --Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:06, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. -- Cerejota (talk) 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one marginally notable work, no sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No references. Article has been around for about 5 years. Bejinhan Talk 04:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per numerous sources available that could be used to improve the article and both assert and show an industry notability that meets WP:GNG. Its sad that no one's done it, but that no one has bothered is not a reason to delete if there is a reasonable presumption that improvements could eventually be done. I might even have a go at it tonight myself so as to lead by example. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:CREATIVE. Google News sources are insufficient to create an article without severe wikipuffery being involved. Notability is not inherited, and when the thing he is most notable for, PajamasTV, is not itself notable, that says something. I think MQS is wasting his time if he tries to improve this, but I'll weigh in again with an open mind after he does so. THF (talk) 05:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Addicted to Beauty — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Erwin

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Written like an autobiography. This information is duplicated in Addicted to Beauty Ritual (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A10 CTJF83 GoUSA 01:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Duplicated information? Most certainly delete. Bejinhan Talk 04:44, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the article qualified for speedy deletion under A10, I declined to delete it and instead redirected it to Addicted to Beauty. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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