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

The result was delete, obvious advertising and unreferenced article with no claim of minimal importance. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] EME Creative

EME Creative (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "EME Creative" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

the organisation is non-notable and I cannot find any secondary sources asserting its notability, there is also a conflict of interest issue Declan Clam (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete per A7 - this article about an organisation does not assert the notability of the subject. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete clear WP:ADVERTISING, single use account, blantent spam, why should it be kept again? --WngLdr34 (talk) 13:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Danze Fantasy Productions

Danze Fantasy Productions (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Danze Fantasy Productions" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I removed the speedy from this entertainment company because notability asserted is asserted. The company has performed shows on MSC Cruises and Star Cruises.

However, I have been unable to find coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources to verify this. A Google News Archive search returns a passing mention, while a Google Books search returns no results. This company fails WP:CORP. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - coverage in multiple independent sources only creates a presumption of notability; I'd argue that even if sources were found, this production company would still be non-notable (or at least no more notable than any other production company). - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I find this article notable. --Shorty23sin (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why do you find this topic notable? Your argument currently falls afoul of WP:ITSNOTABLE. Please link to the sources that establish notability. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 08:26, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - beyond passing mentions, I cannot find any coverage about this company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak delete Cannot determine notability, although the name rings a bell (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - I saw this company in Seoul, and they should definitely be on wikipedia. --Bendfp (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn - nomination withdrawn, only vote is to keep - WP:NAC. GiantSnowman 09:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Arthur Stewart (footballer)

Arthur Stewart (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Arthur Stewart (footballer)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Only source is a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - unless anyone's asserting that he is not, in fact, a professional footballer, then he meets WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. –xeno^talk 20:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Peter Rock (musician)

Peter Rock (musician) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Peter Rock (musician)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

I can't find any indication that this guy meets the GNG, despite having a more famous nephew and having introduced several other dudes into music.  pablo_hablo. 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --  pablo_hablo. 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdrawn - mainly due to this, and a vague suspicion that there may be more. I think that the paucity of sources may be due to recentism and intend to improve this article. Local notability is still notability. Apologies for wasting anyone's time.  pablo_hablo. 19:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. --  pablo_hablo. 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I urge you to look at the spanish version of the article to realize his notability. This is the second times this happens to articles i create about musicians, Sexual Democracia was also questioned. Reasons of notability:

• He particiapted in the Chilean TV show "Jappening con ja"
• He participated in the Viña del Mar International Festival in 1990.
• He is perhaps the most famous rock-n-roll muscian in Chile
• He in the Chilean TV show "Rojo Vip"
• He is on the Chilean ock enclopedy.[1] Dentren | ^Talk 22:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep, as "el rey del rock and roll"[2]. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. the strong consensus here is to delete. Whether or not this is N or V does not come into play, and being created by a blocked user does not bode well for any article and would lead to increased scrutiny and skepticism Valley2city^‽ 21:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bhapa Sikh

Bhapa Sikh (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bhapa Sikh" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The Debate on "Bhappa" has not been sorted? Sikh-History 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Previous AfD is located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bhappe -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Like the nominator I haven't seen anything new in this article to show notability for the term. The majority of the article that is referenced, is unrelated to the title. The first two refs are to dictionaries, not a sign of notability. Unless some credible sources are found (unlikely since this page was userfied and worked on for over a month before getting back here), this should be a delete. I'd say it qualifies for G4 given that the only change in articles is addition of unrelated content. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Hoax. There is indeed a slang word "Bhapa". And? wp:NOT a dictionary. Not notable.- Sinneed 04:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC) edit - Sinneed 04:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• GFDL vio? Does this qualify for G12? The page has been copied from User:ISKapoor/Bhapa (indef blocked user's space) which was a userfied version of the earlier Bhappe deleted by the earlier AfD. -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 05:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm... if we do delete Bhappa, I'd suggest deleting that userfy'd Bhapa one as well, as it belongs to a blocked user so there's about no chance of anyone working on it to improve it. Tabercil (talk) 10:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - NoT-Notable and insultive word. --170.35.208.21 (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - not notable and we have had this discussion before about its deletion and it was deleted.--Sikh-History 11:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - user:Sikh-history is the nominator. Procedural question: Should SH's item "non-notable and..." be a "comment" instead of "delete"?

• The Bhapa Sikh article needs to be DELETED NOW! it is a deragotory term found within the Punjabi community, and it the page seems to be created by a Pakistani Punjabi, who has prejudice against Indian Punjabis. PLEASE DELETE THIS PAGE NOW! Thanks --KhatriNYC (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - We do not wp:censor in WP. Shouting in discussions makes it harder to reach wp:consensus, on which WP runs. The fact that this is a derogatory term does not affect whether or not it should be included.- Sinneed 14:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• DELETE - it's a stupid page made by a person who does not like Khatri people. Please delete the Bhapa Sikh page. Thanks. --KhatriNYC (talk) 18:47, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment The critical thing that we are supposed to be thinking about here, is if the topic is both notable and verifiable. I don't think that saying that the term is a racial slur is grounds for deleting the article. I realize that this is WP:OTHERCRAP but there are articles on Nigger and Nigga which are also offensive racial terms. WP:ILIKEIT isn't generally a good reason to keep an article in and of itself, but I found the article interesting, and I learned from it, because it is good to know offensive terms, if only to avoid using them to not offend someone. I noticed that the article was deleted before, but read an interesting point made in the deletion discussion. This argument was that the very number of people participating in the discussion pretty much proved that the topic was notable and verifiable. If this was some sort of term that no one had ever heard of there would not be an army of partisans interested in deleting it. I have noticed the unfortunate tendency within the India project section of Wikipedia to try and white wash and sanitize articles about ethnic tensions in India. I think this is unfortunate because it threatens WP:NPOV.

• As far as User:SpacemanSpiff reasoning about the relation between this deletion debate and WP:BLOCK, I really don't see how that applies here. Of course there may be an element within the community who is using the blocking policy to push a point of view that sanitizes racial tensions, by unfairly blocking users who are not following their agenda. If that is the case with this particular article, blocking policy become irrelevant clearly by WP:IAR. Even if some ingenious Wiki-lawyer could come up with some sort of blocking policy justification for deleting this article, all that proves is that the blocking policy itself has become to long and complicated so my approach would be to say WP:TLDR to the blocking policy. So here it is in a nutshell. Blocking policy can't be used to justify pushing a non-neutral point of view. What does a particular editor being blocked or not have to do with if a topic is notable WP:N and verifiable WP:V? Nothing what so ever it would seem to me. The whole line of reasoning is an ad hominum attack. This would be prohibited by WP:NPA, unless it is admitted that people are using WP:BLOCK to skirt around the prohibitions on using this type of logic in a debate.
• As far as Wikipedia not being a dictionary, if all that were available about the topic were a dictionary definition, this might be valid, but ethnic slurs seem to normally have an involved history, and have a lot of material about them that involves a treatment more involved than simply giving a dictionary definition. The present article is more than a dictionary definition, and while it also needs a lot of work to fix a neutral point of view, still clearly there is more material than a simple dictionary definition.

• Getting back to the issue of if this term is notable and verifiable, I did a quick google search and saw that there were close to 5,000 hits. I realize that WP:GHITS alone does not always prove a topic is worthy of inclusion this does at least show that the term is fairly well known. I found a fairly interesting and what seemed to be a well read article here. But there should be plenty of other good references that could be turned up rather quickly with a little work. In conclusion this term is clearly both notable and there should be plenty of verifiable information about it that could be turned up with a little work, and the present poor or even offensive state of the article is not really relevant here.130.86.76.103 (talk) 23:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Above edit by 130.86.76.103 was modified 19:09, 8 October 2009 by 130.86.73.121. Guessing this is a dynamic IP but... not the same IP.- Sinneed 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment- 130.86.76.103, the wall-of-text method of doing anything at all in WP works poorly. It simply means it is very unlikely that one's comment will be read. I would love to read a 1 or 2 sentence summary of that, as I would love to hear your point.- Sinneed 23:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. The keep arguments have failed to effectively refute the policy/guideline based delete arguments. Kevin (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bee Money

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts may be tagged using: {{subst:spa|username}}

Bee Money (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bee Money" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Although there are enough claims of importance (hit songs) that I declined the speedy deletion request, I'm not finding enough sources to show this artist meets WP:BIO. No entry at allmusic, gsearch not turning up independent reliable sources. The sources in the article are a listing of where he'll appear locally, a pdf that doesn't mention him, and an article in his school newspaper. Prod contested by article's creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Appears to be a local club performer with little to no notability. Eeekster (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - the relevant criteria are WP:N and WP:MUSICBIO and I can't find anything in the article to suggest that he meets any criterion under either of those policies. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Bee Money is notable per the basic notability criteria WP:BIO. He has be the subject of secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent from the subject. This criteria is met by the school newspaper. Bee Money is not a student at Brigham Young University and never has been. The newspaper is also a reputable paper. Further, Bee Money is also notable under the additional criteria for entertainers. He has a large fan base in the Utah Valley region and his following could be considered a "cult" following. Also his fight for clean music is a unique and innovative contribution to the rap industry. Further Emerson meets the criteria WP:MUSICBIO. He has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city. Ericf9 (talk) 05:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)— Ericf9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. — Ericf9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - I think you're reading WP:BIO too narrowly. It also requires the subject of the article to be "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Further, regarding sources, I don't know how a student newspaper could possibly be claimed as a reliable source, especially since it's not linked, it's non-notable, and no information is included on how one might go about obtaining a copy. Lastly, the article doesn't assert him to be "the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city" - whether you're talking about rap generally, clean rap, or the entirely non-notable rap scene of Provo, UT - and neither do any of the sources. (And his "hits" don't meet any of the criteria under WP:MUSICBIO.) - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and the analysis by DustFormsWords.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 05:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Bee Money Article appears to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO. Bee Money has a immense cult following and is an advocate for clean rap music. - User:Bigbusinessonly — Bigbusinessonly (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - Bee Money Article does not appear to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO. Bee Money may have an immense cult following, but we've seen no proof of this, and being an advocate for clean rap music does not infer notability - see WP:N#CLEANRAPMUSICADVOCATESAREEXEMPT. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - This article appears to be notable seeing as he is the only representative of the Provo, UT rap scene which contains two major Universities, Brigham Young University and Utah Valley University. Thats over 55,000 students in one valley. Who are the biggest rap fans? kids age 20-30 aka college kids and so if theres only one rapper, everyone knows him and they'll want to look him up and figure out his story and where would they turn? wikipedia unless you fetchers try to delete it. dont hate! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinodude81 (talk • contribs) 05:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC) — Dinodude81 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Keep Bee Money is notable to say the least. He is an icon in the Utah Valley. Deletion of this article would be a loss for the wikipedia community (User talk:Thisisamericamyfriends — Thisisamericamyfriends (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Delete - coverage in a student newspaper does not establish notability. Whpq (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - welcome to Wikipedia, all you new editors involved here. Here's what you do if you want to prove this person is notable: find reliable sources saying he's notable. The sources provided so far are not cutting it, and you guys saying he's awesome and an advocate for stuff doesn't help at all. (Oh, and calling people names and saynig "don't hate!" doesn't help much either.) At present, the subject fails WP:MUSIC. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It appears that all of you "experienced" wikipedia editors advocating the deletion of this article, claim that "the Bee Money Article does not appear to be notable according to criteria WP:BIO" Here's what you can do. Research what wikipedia state's as meeting criteria for musicians and ensembles. #7 states that an artist "Has become the most prominent representative of a notable style or of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability." Verifiability under "your" (wikipedia's) terms is whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. The common theme in the "notability guidelines" is the requirement for verifiable objective evidence to support a claim of notability, which all of our sources do. Substantial coverage in reliable sources constitutes such objective evidence, as do published peer recognition and the other factors listed in the subject specific guidelines. School and university newspapers would therefore be classified as "published peer recognition." So don't debate that university newspapers are not "reliable." In conclusion, don't refute that Bee Money is not notable. According to WP:BIO #7, he is. That is sufficient. Read our sources THOROUGHLY. Do not say that our sources do not establish notability. According to your terms, "published peer recognition and the other factors (which are met) is considered substantial coverage as a reliable sources. Red20five (talk) 06:04, 6 October 2009 (UTC) — red20five (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  Before lecturing about reading WP:BAND, you might want to read that section again. It starts out "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria:" (emphasis mine). May be notable is not the same as is automatically notable. This just gives some guidelines on the types of articles that should be in Wikipedia. The other notability requirements still need to be met. The issue seems to be the sources. If you read WP:N, you'll see that ""Sources," for notability purposes, should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred." A short newspaper article isn't enough on its own; a listing of appearances doesn't provide any depth of coverage, and sources that don't even mention him surely can't provide evidence of notability.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The article appears notable. imonaboatlikeaboss (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC). — Imonaboatlikeaboss (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment - (still sticking by my Delete vote above) - Just wanted to point out that Provo, UT is a city of only 117,000 people and being a prominent figure on its rap scene is presumably not much harder than performing a couple of live gigs. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Well DustFormsWords you seem to have done your research, unfortunately you failed to take into account that "Provo is also the principal city in the Provo-Orem metropolitan area, with an estimated population of 540,820 residents.[4] It is the second largest metro area in the state behind Salt Lake City." That's straight from the Provo Wikipedia page, which means it is very notable. Probably also the same page you looked at to get your last statistic but then failed to keep reading in order to find out that Provo is the principal city of the second largest metro area in Utah not just an isolated city of only 117,592 people. Plus that is a completely ridiculous statement to say that all it takes to become a prominent rap figure in Provo is a couple of live gigs! You come to Provo and rap, or for that matter perform live whatever you want, and I guarantee no one knows your name and you don't get half as many fans as Bee Money! ONE OUT!-Billnted (talk) 05:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC) — Billnted (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment - but on what basis are you basing your opinion of keep on? -- Whpq (talk) 11:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment - Serious? - Billnted (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Billy Neill

Billy Neill (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Billy Neill" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Now also sourced by this, which does meet RS policy, and shows notability. GiantSnowman 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, does that consitute a "reliable, third-party, published source"?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, but I'm not trying to prove this article passes GNG, which it doesn't yet. I'm using the source to prove sporting notability, which I am satisfied that I have done. GiantSnowman 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep:
  • there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
  • there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
  • there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
  • there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
  • "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
  • finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 11:43, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Sammy Hughes (footballer)

Sammy Hughes (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Sammy Hughes (footballer)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - this source shows he was topscorer in the Irish league in three different seasons for Glentoran, enough for me. GiantSnowman 21:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - Would being Glentoran's third-highest ever goalscorer and being chosen for the Northern Irish FA tour of America and Canada in 1953 (as well as being the top scorer in the Northern Irish league in three seasons, as pointed out above) be enough to show notability? DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I would say so! GiantSnowman 21:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: Passes WP:ATHLETE. Joe Chill (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep:
  • there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
  • there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
  • there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
  • there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
  • "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
  • finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Dunlop (footballer)

George Dunlop (footballer) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "George Dunlop (footballer)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep, although Mooretwin is using a blog as a reference, Dunlop is an international footballer.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Vintagekits, international footballer and therefore notable. GiantSnowman 21:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - He played four times for Northern Ireland (and was chosen for the 1982 World Cup squad), therefore making him notable. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:ATHLETE, full international representative--ClubOranje^T 05:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 13:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Eric Treverrow

Eric Treverrow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Eric Treverrow" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - won many honours with Ballymena, and "was given the prestigious honour of being named Ulster Footballer of the Year" in 1952, as per this reliable source which I have added to the text. GiantSnowman 21:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, thats funny because I have always seen you claim that biogs on players own websites dont consitute a RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not a biography, it's a club history. Read the source before editing. GiantSnowman 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Its still not a source independent of the person though - which is what you have claimed on other AfD's. --Vintagekits (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You need to move on from months-old AfDs that didn't go your way. Face it, the club's own official history is a reliable source that proves this guy is notable! GiantSnowman 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. GiantSnowman 21:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you saying that it is a third party source then?--Vintagekits (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, as it's clearly not. I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability, which I am satisfied it does. GiantSnowman 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

You contradict yourself in your own post. You say I'm not using this source to try and pass GNG, yet, then you say, I'm using it to show sporting acheivements and notability. Emphasis mine, to show bits which contradict each other.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

What I meant was, notability through sporting success, as opposed to notability through third-party sources. GiantSnowman 21:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I don't even know what GiantSnowman is trying to say; you keep contradicting yourself and making absolutely no sense at all. Anyways, delete as I can't find any proof of notability whatsoever. Blogspam and one-time mentions on some obscure website doesn't count for anything. Keep - While there are other problems with the sources, I misunderstood the notability policy for athletes. So keep. GraYoshi2x►^talk 17:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• How do I contradict myself? And RSSSF isn't "some obscure website", it's one of the most highly-rated football statistics websites available! Wrong AfD, sorry! Too darn tired... GiantSnowman 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• All the stuff you're saying on notability. While it's not notable, it somehow is in sports...? If it's NN, it's NN; it doesn't matter what category the subject is in. This doesn't exactly show that it's a highly-rated or frequently visited site either. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• It doesn't matter how many times a website is visited to show its reliablity, what a ridiculous thing to claim. The fact you have to face is that the website I have provided shows that this guy has acheived enough for his article to be deemed as notable. GiantSnowman 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• But you're not saying anything about it being reliable; you're talking about notability. Again, a one-sentence mention does not make for a proper source for any article. Nor does it say anything about his notability. I can have someone write a short mention of me and how I frequently shop this or that supermarket; still doesn't make me notable. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• That's because the act of shopping in a supermarket, which the sentence shows, isn't notable. However, the sentence above shows sporting notability, as does this independent newspaper article, which shows Treverrow was a member of the 1958 Irish Cup winning side. GiantSnowman 22:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• So first off you say that the article isn't notable... and then you claim "sporting notability", which AFAIK there is no such thing on Wikipedia. Yet again, passing mentions of some person contributing to a sports victory does not make that person notable. The group as a whole may be, but not that one single player. GraYoshi2x►^talk 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Where did I say the article wasn't notable? There is sporting notability, located at WP:ATHLETE, I suggest you read it. GiantSnowman 22:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Unless anyone asserts that he is not actually a professional footballer, he meets WP:ATHLETE ("People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport") and the article should be kept. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Withdraw - I'm just going to remove the unreliable source from the articles that contain it. People can add in reliable sources later.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm afraid you can't withdraw yet as there is still an unstruck 'Delete' vote from GraYoshi2x - sorry. GiantSnowman 08:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep:
  • there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
  • there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
  • there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
  • there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
  • "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
  • finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it.Mooretwin (talk) 10:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Govvy (talk) 12:53, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Clancy McDermott

Clancy McDermott (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Clancy McDermott" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Sourced to a blog that doesn't meet our WP:RS policy. — Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - the blog is, in my humble opinion at least, a reliable source. As I have said on a discussion over at WP:ANI, "Just because it is a blog does not mean it isn't reliable - WP:SPS says that "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications", and contributors to the NIFG blog include respected and established football contibutors such as George Glass, who is a senior researcher over at IFFHS, another respected online footballing source." Anyways, regardless of that blog, I have added another reliable source to show notability. GiantSnowman 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, Official blogs maybe be RS but these usually have the authors name on the article. These articles are anonymous and do not pass WP:V.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ignore the blog then - what about the source from Coleraine's official site which shows notability? GiantSnowman 21:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, thats funny because I have always seen you claim that biogs on players own websites dont consitute a RS.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• There's a difference between a bog-standard current player profile that every Tom, Dick & Harry for every club gets, and this which is an in-depth retrosepctive of a player's career. GiantSnowman 21:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• But its not an independent source is it. Dont worry I am used to your (and your cabals) double standards! Hence the reason I am retired.--Vintagekits (talk) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• It may not be independent but it's still reliable! And if you're retired, why are you still editing?!? GiantSnowman 21:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Well I am just trying to find some consistancy with you guys - which was always, and seems still is still, lacking. You always said that if the article was produced by the players club then it wasnt "third party" and therefore didnt pass as a WP:RS - I'm just saying what you said!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• The difference is, you were using non-third party player profiles to show that a player passed WP:GNG, which specifically asks for independent sources - and therefore they weren't good enough. I am not doing that here. GiantSnowman 21:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:N states that it should be a "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject" - this source is from the players clubs is that "Independent of the subject"? Just checkin like!--Vintagekits (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• I doubt an official in-depth club retrosepctive of a players successful career is going to be rejected as a RS - let's see what other editors have to say, OK? GiantSnowman 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of non-trivial independent reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 07:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep:
  • there are hundreds of articles on Wikipedia with no reliable sources and which haven't been deleted;
  • there is no doubt that the player in question is notable, having been named as an Ulster Footballer of the Year (this is referenced);
  • there is no question of anything libellous being included in the article;
  • there is no reason to query the accuracy of any of the information provided;
  • "reliable sources" have been provided for much of the information in the article - so, even, if some material is based on an "unreliable source", there is still merit in retaining the article, even if some material is to be removed;
  • finally, a request for additional sources is included at the top of the article, so it seems premature to be deleting it. Mooretwin (talk) 10:03, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment:note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits, who appears to have raised this at AN/I as some kind of "revenge" for an incident report which I made against him here. Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The personal comments above should be struck out. Please keep your comments to the content, and not about what you believe the motivations of other editors to be. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm the one that made this afd, not VK. Or are you suggesting I'm a sockpuppet of him? If that is the case, then it is a personal attack, as it is without evidence, and should be removed.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm making no such accusation. The point being made is that this nomination arose as a result of a "revenge" complaint made by VK at AN/I. Also note that he weighed in here after you nominated the article. Mooretwin (talk) 10:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you aren't, then please retract the assertion that the motivation for this request is personal. I am in no way involved with either you or VK, it is not personal.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Jeez. Give us a chance. You just prevented me from doing so by causing an edit conflict! Mooretwin (talk) 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Moretowin, the rationale behind the AfD has nothing to do with you personally, it is to do with the accuracy of information contained within the article as it stood when the nomination was made, which is a perfectly valid reason for AfD. I would second Daedalus' suggestion to strike through your comments, as an AfD debate isn't the place for this. Regards, GiantSnowman 10:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

First, I already changed the comments. Second, I'm not saying that the rationale is anything to do with me personally: I'm saying that the issue arose out of a personal issue in respect of User:Vintagekits. Mooretwin (talk) 10:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

But the nominator isn't Vintagekits, it is Daedalus969...GiantSnowman 10:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And? As I've said (twice now, I think) - I've changed my comments. I do not say that Vintagekits is the nominator. Mooretwin (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"note that this request for deletion has arisen as a result of a personal issue on the part of User:Vintagekits" - your personal run-ins with Vintagekits have nothing to do with this AfD, and yet that comment remains for some reason! GiantSnowman 10:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

If you go to AN/I you'll see where this AfD originated. What I have said is true. Mooretwin (talk) 11:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The article currently has a reference from Northern Ireland Soccer Yearbook 2009-2010 which appears to denote notability to the subject. Not having a copy, can MT paste the relevent comments here? Personally, if Clancy is notable, I see no reason why this article should be deleted. --HighKing (talk) 10:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

HighKing, there has been a very recent discussion here which proves the reliability of the NIFG source which Daedalus969 previously believed to be a unreliable source; even Daedalus969 has said he now views it as reliable. GiantSnowman 11:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

There's also a source from the Coleraine F.C. web site, which is reliable. Mooretwin (talk) 11:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

The consensus now is that NIFG is also reliable. GiantSnowman 11:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep In light of the info given about reliable sources. --HighKing (talk) 20:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Withdraw - per findings at WP:RSN.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Creston Davis

Creston Davis (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Creston Davis" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Borderline notability; cleanup and better references may suffice to demonstrate notability though LotLE×talk 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. He seems to have an active academic career but I see no evidence that his research has yet had the impact needed to pass WP:PROF #1, I don't think his editing rises to the level of WP:PROF #8, and he clearly doesn't pass any of the other WP:PROF criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete. David Eppstein’s analysis is right on target, but I should say that the subject is a co-author/editor of two books by prestigious university publishers, one by Duke University Pres and the other by MIT Press. The most widely held is in 268 libraries worldwide according to WorldCat, and the second in 153 libraries. The article was create a bit early, and the subject is almost sure to pass WP:PROF notability criteria in the near future. I wonder if we could do anything to make it clear to academic bio article creators that waiting a little bit (often 1 or 2 years would be enough) would significantly enhance the chances of certain bio articles (like this) being kept. The flip side, unfortunately, is that creating articles too early frequently leads to embarrassment for the subjects of the articles, as the comments posted in these AfD discussions are often “brutal”. I heard of at least one recent case in which an AfD discussion, like this one, was printed and used in a tenure committee meeting discussion; needless to say, against the applicant.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Gah. We have far less information to go on than real tenure committees, and our decisions are made on different bases. I hope this sort of thing is very infrequent. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• A wise warning above. It is also sometimes the case that articles about an academic are created by one of their students, eager to puff themselves up by proxy, and which cause embarassment. But GS cites in this case appear to be negligible so it is difficult to avoid Delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:28, 4 October 2009 (UTC).
• Weak keep. Despite being nominator, I went back and took a look for Dr. Davis in the Google Scholar link above. I'm inclined to think that his editorship on several books on "good" presses, about areas of current scholarly research, nudges this towards keep. I think Eric Yurken is right that this article might have done better to wait a year for creation, but given it's here, I'm not sure keeping it around during that year is really a bad thing. I don't know if the article was indeed created by a student or colleague, as Xxanthippe suggests is likely, but the merit need not be judged on the article's origin, in any case. LotLE×talk 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I do not suggest anything of the sort. I have no idea of the real personae of the editors and creators of the article. My comment was of a generic nature although my recommendation to delete is specific this this article. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

I should not, as full disclosure, that I only noticed the article existing (or heard of Creston Davis) when some overzealous editor linked to it from the article on prominent academic Slavoj Zizek (whom I've written about in academic publications, and whose article I tend to maintain, and who was also a teacher and collaborator of Dr. Davis). Zizek obviously has many far less prominent academics whom he has taught or worked with, and Zizek's notability is not transferable by mere collaboration. LotLE×talk 23:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Scholarly output and impact seem roughly commensurate for someone early in their academic career, i.e. not yet notable according to WP:PROF #1. Note that he is an editor only of the "book reviews" section of the journal, not the journal itself, which specifically does not pass #8. No claim on any of the other PROF criteria leave us with an unambiguous delete. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 05:43, 5 October 2009 (UTC).

• Delete not yet notable. Junior coauthor and coeditor on 3 books,with only minor contributions to the edited ones. his advisor (Slavoj Zizek,) is notable, he is not, at least not now. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no indication in the article that Zizek is his advisor; and that seems highly unlikely, because I don't think Zizek has had an advisory position at a Western institution, particularly at Rollins. Even if he did, that doesn't denote notability . Shadowjams (talk) 10:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator as a mistake using Twinkle. (non-admin closure) ArcAngel (talk) 00:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Spongefrog

:User talk:Spongefrog (edit|[[Talk:User talk:Spongefrog|talk]]|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "User talk:Spongefrog" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn Sorry!!! Mistake using WP:Twinkle. My fault, yes, I apologise for my carelesness , Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Spongefrog being stupid! (lol)--Coldplay Expert 21:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep because someone already put delete.--Orangesodakid 22:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

[edit] Easy!Flow

Easy!Flow (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Easy!Flow" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable software product. User stated that he created the article in order to attract users to the product. Haakon (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:COI and WP:PROMO. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I had nominated this as a speedy as the original version was really just a list of features, however I still believe it fails WP:N as references have not shown significant coverage from third-party sources. As mentioned above by Haakon there also may be a WP:COI issue. --Aka042 (talk) 23:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as article creator admitted to using Wikipedia for promotion. ArcAngel (talk) 00:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete, WP:CSD#G11. Checking into it this is a vanity page created by the website's owner. Self-closing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)

[edit] Gatehouse Gazette

Gatehouse Gazette (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Gatehouse Gazette" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Previously deleted due to lack of sources. Recreated twice now by the same author, Ottens (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), already G4'd once, I think it still fails that test. All the references appear to be blogs or directories. I see no coverage of this publication in reliable independent secondary sources. This is unsurprising since it's a niche publication which is only on issue 8. That also explains why the article appears to be mainly written from original observation of the source material. Advertorial in tone and includes descriptions of the content of early issues, which I suppose is understandable since there are only 8 issues all told anyway. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep (Following copied from the article's talk page in reference to notability.) While I very much realize that certainly not all of the references listed meet wikipedia's requirements for reliable, secondary sources, I do believe some are of note while others should not be outright dismissed, for they serve as references to quotes. Of particular interest are the links and features from Camarilla, Il ReteGiornale, [MINE] (their website seems down but the same entry can be read here), Chris Roberson and Hallows Eve Designs. Those are not all "blogs or directories". Ottens (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ottens, your website is http://www.ottens.co.uk/ and the centre link on the site is to The Gatehouse - http://www.ottens.co.uk/gatehouse/gazette. Are you associated with Gatehouse Gazette? Given that you have now created the article three times and no other editor has ever added anything other than deletion tags. Guy (Help!) 07:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to International Journal of Surgery. It's clear there's no consensus to keep the article here; since there do appear to be sources available (which even one of the delete !voters noted), this content can be moved to another article. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WikiSurgery

WikiSurgery (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "WikiSurgery" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:WEB JFW | T@lk 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Great idea, I like it. Unfortunately, there's only a brief "Hello" over on Pubmed, and the wiki's own About page for resources. This comes nowhere near being notable as a web page. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge to the owners International Journal of Surgery. All that I can find for significant coverage is this. Joe Chill (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment There's also PMID 19126604, but it's just a letter from MH Edwards. Google scholar shows a number of articles that name it, but none that seem to properly discuss it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Reluctant delete. I wondered about the article's notability and I added a reliable source prior to tagging by JFW. Unfortunately I'm struggling to find more sources. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge Here are a couple books that mention it http://books.google.com/books?q=Wikisurgery&btnG=Search+Books It is significant enough to be added under the International Journal of Surgery with a redirect. By the way Wikipedia only gets 42 hits over at pubmed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge (and keep Redirect) I'm more inclined to keeping information on the encyclopedia (you could say that I'm a mild inclusionist). After thinking about it though, I think it is notable enough to keep but not enough so that it deserves it's own article. Thanks for telling me, Axl. Airplaneman ^talk 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Bones As Armour

Bones As Armour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Bones As Armour" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This page contains the only album released by Enemy Logic, whose AFD is over here. In short, nothing on these guys as per WP:MUSIC. No prejudice to recreating when they get known. Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per failing WP:MUSIC. Until the album charts, then it can be re-created. ArcAngel (talk) 19:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per below the rqmts. of WP:MUSIC. N2e (talk) 04:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete WP:MUSIC has occasional times where it's slightly optional: this is not one of them (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Charlie Bewley

Charlie Bewley (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Charlie Bewley" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable biography... fails WP:CRYSTAL, WP:V, and WP:ENTERTAINER... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. The reference given are: (1) A page on twilightblog.net, where anyone can submit "news" items; (2) a news release from a film studio (Summit Entertainment) in which Bewley's name appears in a cast list, and that is all; (3) an article on hollywood.com. This last is the only one which could conceivably be considered independent coverage. It is of reasonable length, but it is essentially an announcement that he is to play a fairly minor role in a film, extended with general chat. Hollywood.com covers 9,549 actors, so inclusion is not exactly exclusive. He comes nowhere near satisfying WP:ENTERTAINER's criteria. One of these criteria is "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions". Whether this role is "significant" is questionable, but even if it is it is only one role, not roles in "multiple" films. As for the other criteria listed at WP:ENTERTAINER, he does not have a "large fan base or a significant 'cult' following", and by no stretch of the imagination has he "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". JamesBWatson (talk) 08:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as above, but with no bias against recreating in the near future should the subject meet notability criteria. --Whoosit (talk) 22:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Blaxy Girls

Blaxy Girls (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Blaxy Girls" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:BAND and indeed WP:V - no reliable third-party sources exist documenting the band's alleged successes. I checked in both languages, and the only mentions were in blogs, forums and the like. The only exception was an article from this summer in a newspaper from the provincial city of Suceava, noting that they'd made a big splash at a concert there, but that's not really enough to satisfy our policies. Biruitorul ^Talk 14:40, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep seems to be issues that can be solved by some editing and some sourcing along the way.--Judo112 (talk) 15:26, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Can you elaborate? Like I said, we have no reliable sources from which to expand. We have a record of one performance, which does not satisfy WP:BAND, point 4 ("Has received non-trivial coverage in a reliable source of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" - the Suceava performance was not, as far as we are told, part of a tour), or WP:GNG ("significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - a paragraph in a local newspaper is not "significant coverage"). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:34, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:Band criterion 9, they have reached at least the semifinals in at least two Romanian music competitions. I added this info to their page with appropriate references. They also have significant coverage in their home country here. J04n(talk page) 16:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Elaborating on the above, here's a link to an article about them getting semi-final in that specific competition mentioned on the page. [3]. The fact that this is up for deletion is a joke, everything in the article is factual. Do your own research before marking it for deletion. Sure, the article needs sources, but deletion? Absolutely not. This extensive coverage as found on Google News also qualifies the band for WP:Band criterion 1. 72.194.105.63 (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. Easily passes WP:BAND both in terms of media coverage and placing in the Eurovision nationals. -Kieran (talk) 06:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep as they seem to have gotten significant coverage now. ArcAngel (talk) 19:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I'm having problems reading the sources, but they do appear to cover the band in enough detail for an article to be written. WP:V and WP:N appear to be met. Hobit (talk) 13:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Eurovision --AStanhope (talk) 16:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. No consensus to keep, doubt whether relisting will achieve anything Kevin (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Henry Mortensen (actor)

Henry Mortensen (actor) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Henry Mortensen (actor)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is the second nomination of this article for deletion. I was unaware of the first nomination 6 months ago when I came across the article. My concern for this article is that there are no reliable sources which discuss this person in significant depth, as required by WP:BLP, WP:BIO, and WP:GNG. His name certainly appears in many places, such as in the liner notes of CDs by his famous parents, or for a few bit parts in some notable movies, however the compelling issue is not what he has done. Notability is specifically NOT about fame or what a person has actually accomplished. It is about what reliable sources have written about what he has done and as yet, I cannot find any reliable sources which discuss his life in any depth. Since there is an utter lack of such sources, I am again nominating this for deletion. Reviewing the prior nomination, which closed as no-consensus, none of the votes for deletion actually addressed this fundemental problem, and instead focused solely on the places where his name appeared. Jayron32 19:15, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm torn. Probably the best we have are the albums, so he'd possibly be a keeper under WP:MUSIC as a session musician. Thoughts? --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 20:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • WP:MUSIC contains no such presumptions of notability for session musicians. None of the criteria at WP:MUSIC seems to cover this person in any way. --Jayron32 20:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Not as a session, but he seems to be part of the ensemble. That would be covered. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • There's no "ensemble" in the sense of a cohesive, touring band. He sat in on a few recording sessions on some vanity albums made by his famous actor dad and his punk rock mother. This wasn't like the "Beatles" or anything like that. Appearing on an album with other musicians does not make one part of an "ensemble". The guy who played glockenspiel on this album is no more notable for his musicianship than the junior Mr. Mortensen is. Again, that we can come up with a list of places where his name is printed does not make him automatically worthy of an encyclopedia article... --Jayron32 02:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
        • OK, good enough. Delete per this discussion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 02:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. That is, clear consensus sans the additional commentary by the confirmed socks. MuZemike 01:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PDFFiller

PDFFiller (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "PDFFiller" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. The Lifehacker & USA Today reviews cited in the articles are not of sufficient depth, and the other review is by Siteguide, a blog, which is not a reliable source. Cybercobra (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Previous group AfD which included this article --Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 05:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Also, DemoMarks is a blog. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose deletion : Following this discussion as well as the archived thread, I question the relevancy of the depth of the USA today article, considering the general notability, and general purpose, rather than tech specific nature of the source. The site in question is pretty simple itself, and the question of relevancy and notability seems unrelated to depth of coverage in this instance. The current article's length and level of detail also seems proportional to the notability implied by the brief news story. Unless a better argument is made, i would oppose deletion at this time. SoloCoder 12:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)— SoloCoder (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • I'm sorry, but depth of coverage does matter when determining notability. From the general notability guideline:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria" (emphasis mine)

where (quoting same page):

"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material

--Cybercobra (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 19:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Sources are just repeating the contents of press releases, there is nothing here which amounts to a non-trivial reliable independent source. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm sorry, but this is simply not true. In the entire history of Pdffiller there was a single press release (Jun 2008) about free services for unemployed. All the press articles date back to 2007. So it would be impossible for the reviews to copy the content of the press release. Press release was never released to begin with.Clearweb

Oppose deletion : disclosure: i'm not a wikipedia expert, and i may be biased as I know someone who works for the company. There are 91,000 hits on google on the word 'pdffiller', it's the first site that lets people fill in non-fillable pdf forms online, there are several thousand people who use it regularly for things like filling in job applications (and the site is free for people who are unemployed), it's pretty clear that it's significant in the sense that it impacts the lives of thousands of people (you're probably much more likely to land a job in mcdonalds if the application is typed instead of handwritten). also a quick look on wikipedia shows many similar companies in this space with no discussion of deletion, and with less blog and news coverage. this seems like it started because originally an insider posted a biased article. but there's no reason to keep punishing them years later at the cost of deleting useful information. if anything the article needs to be fleshed out, and if it's saved i may come back and help with that. -joe silverman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.203.54.75 (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2009 (UTC) — 166.203.54.75 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oppose deletion : Hello everyone, I run PDFfiller.com - i am a bit dyslexic  :) so normally i stay away from this type of discussions.

I have try to communicate directly with CyberCobra. No response. But in this case i feel like i need to forget about my own insecurities and voice my opinion. However byos you may consider it. Few points: 1. We provide free service to unemployed people who are looking fro a job. And they find out about this service on Wikipedia. 2. As far as content of the article and the "notability" claims. PDFfiller is a very simple website. Simplicity is what our users are looking for. It will never get in depth review. There is no depth. But it is very useful to allot of people. Whether we like it or not wikipedia has become a major source of relighble information on all sorts of subjects. People use it to find anything. If you are going after tools then you may as well delete all of them not just the simple once. 3. We did not have anything to do PDFfiller entry on wikipedia. User did it because he want to let other people know that we exist. Try to keep this in mind. I hope this points make cense to you. If you want to communicate with me directly please email to vadim@pdffiller.com Clearweb — Clearweb (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This user has already commented above as User:SoloCoder, as confirmed by checkuser. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The USA Today mention of it makes it notable. There are links to other third party media coverage as well. Dream Focus 14:35, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That mention is in relative passing along with 6 other products, it's not of sufficient depth (I grant you that story is borderline, but there's no second example of significant, reliable coverage); the same lack of depth applies to the other coverage besides the blog, which is obviously not a RS. --Cybercobra (talk) 15:45, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - thre is no significant coverage about this. The first two refrences in the article are blogs and the lifehacker and USA Today are just brief mentions. I see no sifnificant coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Checkuser note: SoloCoder, the IP address, and Clearweb are all the same person. This is confirmed by checkuser, and supported by behavioral evidence and edits by related addresses. Closing admin, please treat those votes accordingly. I've blocked SoloCoder and the IP address for one week each, and Clearweb indefinitely. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mashrouteh Park

Mashrouteh Park (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mashrouteh Park" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Notability of this park is not established. Also WP:NOTREPOSITORY. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete only 4 Ghits, and article lacks context and a lot of unneeded pictures. ArcAngel (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- non notable. N2e (talk) 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly a nice suburban park, but not verifiably notable. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 23:02, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Delete. Arguments on this side were based more strongly in policy.. Tan | 39 01:07, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kris Krug

Kris Krug (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kris Krug" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Does not meet notability guidelines. Article displays simple WP:BOMBARDMENT in an attempt to establish notability. Of the 21 references which make the article appear really "fleshed-out," none are reliable third-party sources on the subject, Kris Krug. Eight of them are actually just links to the subject's flickr photos! Most of the rest are links to websites he's involved with (or blogs he's written) that in no way establish his objective notability. Oh, and there are a couple sites which have his photographs on them. This would be like declaring a police officer notable because he's arrested people. Don't know what else to say; just read the article, reads as a WP:PROMOTION. Plus, as a corollary, recently this reeks of promotion: Special:Contributions/SylviaBoBilvia, adding his photos all over the wiki and linking back to this article (in the main namespace, where photos aren't supposed to be attributed as such), even if they don't fit in an encyclopedic style (Matt Good picture, versus the old Matt Good picture. And then, even when it's removed from the page by other editors, it's just re-added: example on Billy Bragg. The whole situation just reeks of promotion. Check the "What Links Here" to see more examples. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - As of now, I've delinked the most egregiously promotional "back-links," so "What Links Here" won't work as great....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 04:06, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - the fact that the material is poorly presented does not make it non-notable; neither does the fact that some of the article needs to be deleted say anything about the remainder of the content. The man's verifiably a published author and a published photographer who's had his work featured in multiple notable publications. The article badly needs a cleanup, but I don't think it merits deletion. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Is he verifiably a published author of a notable book? What are the multiple notable publications? The only one I see is New York Press which is uncited (should be easily citable). Oh, and a whole bunch of blogs, which look very nicely sourced, but just link to the blogs. There are no reliable third-party assertions of his notability. Links to his pictures (especially 8 links to his flickr page) don't notability make....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete If notability guidelines contained a category for self-promotion, this article would be a sure inclusion. Krug has certainly pushed the limits of how far one can achieve reknown for one's own efforts. Unfortunately, the standards for article inclusion do not anticipate self-marketing efforts. Here are what the notability standard for creative professionals do provide:

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors. 2. The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique. 3. 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. 4. 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, or had works in many significant libraries.

Frankly, as demonstrated through the article, Krug does not yet achieve notability on any of the four points. To paraphrase, Krug does not show that he has wide recognition from his peers; he has not originated new techniques; created a significant body of work; and is not represented in several notable musuems. Krug may yet achieve this acclaim, but his work has not done this to date. As such, I feel the article should be deleted without prejudice to a future re-creation when he can demonstrated notability. TheMindsEye (talk) 02:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment re: sources - considering I already voted Keep above. Okay, I'm at a loss for how to work it into the article, but Wired Magazine considers him notable enough to quote ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2005/09/68823 ), and Wired has indeed published his photos ( http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/10/poptechs-emergi/ ) ( http://www.wired.com/underwire/2007/10/poptech-un-crut/ ). Wired vouching for him is, of itself, enough for me to consider him notable. Also, he definitely is credited as an author on the "for dummies" book. I haven't checked his other claimed credits yet but I'd be surprised if someone who's sold to Wired had to lie about about the rest of their resume. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Did this quote and did these photos appear in Wired Magazine as you say? Or did they only appear on Wired's online site as your sources show? Also you make the point that selling to Wired is a sign of credibility, is making your photos available for free use the same sign? As I understand it Krug does not in fact charge for use of his photos. TheMindsEye (talk) 12:08, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• KEEP From this younger generation of mostly priviledged, he is one of but a few who hasn't relied on anyone other than himself to accomplish some very important things for some very important causes. I say keep. Artintegrated (talk) 05:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Could you please elaborate on your mention of "very important things"? What would these be? -- Hoary (talk) 07:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ummm, when you vote, please offer a cogent, meaningful argument. Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and blatant self-promotion. User:SylviaBoBilvia admitted s/he works for Krug. Also doesn't seem to pass WP:N. --Rkitko ^(talk) 12:17, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep - [4], [5], [6], and [7] would indicate he is notable. The severe COI is an issue but not a reason for deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The first and third of those do look interesting. The fourth seems to say no more than that Bittorrent is handy and that Krug wrote a book about it (two facts we already knew) and I don't know what the second one says other than that the man has a busy e-social [?] life. -- Hoary (talk) 15:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
    • You will note that my keep is a "weak" one. The sources aren't the strongest. I'd say the Georgia Straight is probably the strongest in terms of supporting notability. And authoring a book in the Dummies series adds to it. That's all that I was trying to demonstrate. Taken altogether, it clears the notability bar for me. We do need to separate issues of editting with issues of notability. Regardless of the current deplorable state of the article, we need to judge is based on the evidence for notability. Removing excessive puffery doesn't require deletion if the subject is notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm saying this as a local: if a lifestyle interview in the Georgia Straight is perhaps the "strongest" assertion of notability someone has, then they're not that notable on an encyclopedic scale. I still think we have yet to come across anything "meaty" in terms of significance. Based on the bombardment the article already displays, I'm sure if there was anything really good it would already be in there. As Hoary says below, there is no "commentary by disinterested others." Someone like Gary Korpan (another local) is way more significant (and is mentioned in way more and better sources), but in terms of his article in this encyclopedia is just about where he should be. This "Kris Krug" just happens to network and work all over the internet, and thus he can be made to appear somewhat significant by a bunch of purely second-rate online sources. Reliable, third-party? Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 22:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia should not be used for people to astroturf or self promote, and it is clear this is another example of someone attempting to force themselves into the mainstream world via Wiki. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:41, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I've looked again at the first and third of the sources proffered by Whpq, which are the best things I've seen so far. The third is a description of intentions. The first is unintentionally revealing: in its first part, Krug talks about the importance of dotting the web with references to yourself; in the second, he describes his intentions; in the third, he discusses his photography; by the time I embarked on the fourth, I was dozing off. What I'd like to see is commentary by disinterested others on what Krug has done so far; I don't see it. -- Hoary (talk) 01:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tony Fox (arf!) 18:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note - I opted to relist this as I think there are some good points to each side of the discussion, and would prefer to allow some more discussion before any final action is taken, to help reach a more clear consensus. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Of the sources I listed above, #1, and #3 represent the best sourcing for notability that I have been able to find. #1 is an article from the Georgia Straight. This is a free weekly news and entertainment paper circulated in the Vancouver area. As such it's a local paper, but Vancouver is a large population centre in Canada so it does have a wide reach. #3 is Business in Vancouver. I'm not familiar with this publication but it is also focused on the Vancouver area. So once again, this can be argued to be local coverage. For me, the fact that this is local coverage does not tip the notability balance to the delete side because the Greater Vancouver area has a population in excess of 2 million. So I don't think being a local publication is a big deal. Other editors may not hold the same opinion. Note, my keep opion is still a weak one. That is, I've not changed my mind. -- Whpq (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• For the pessimal vote, weak delete. Wphq came up with some good ones, but as Hoary pointed out, they note his intentions (which to me tips the balance in the first place). There's some OK notability out there, but not much of it, and IMO, not enough to meet WP:N, regretfully. The COI for this purpose can be ignored, because it's theoretically fixable - but in Mr. Krug's case, there isn't enough in the way of reliable sources to do that. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak delete everything except [8] seems to be trivial or non-indepedant coverage, but as there's been so much WP:BOMBARDMENT (as nom mentioned) and WP:PUFFERY, it makes it very difficult to whether he is notable or not.--Otterathome (talk) 20:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per PBS coverage, conference organizing/panels, photos published in notable venues like Rolling Stone. Sourcing should be improved, but it doesn't require deletion.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. God help us the day that anyone who ever had a picture published in a notable magazine becomes notable himself. Armigo (talk) 16:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I see a lot of fluff and not much that could help pass WP:CREATIVE. A few of his photos have been published in notable publications, but that doesn't translate into nontrivial coverage of the photographer himself. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Krug is used as an example, not an authority, in the RS articles related to a new way of working. There's absolutely nothing to indicate any of his work is significant enough to justify the excessive detail and linking to about pretty much everything he's ever done. And having some work published at a Rolling Stone online or "used with permission" by a LA Times blog is not the same as being a significant, recognized contributor or the subject of significant news coverage. Flowanda | Talk 09:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The self-promotion is over-the-top, but the proper solution is editing, not deletion. More than one photo layout in the LA Times may be enough on its own, and there's more. I understand the WP disdain for personal blogs, but a blog run by one of the largest newpapers is in a differnt category.--SPhilbrickT 18:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to United Way. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 10:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] I'm dressed this way for United Way

I'm dressed this way for United Way (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "I'm dressed this way for United Way" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non notable and non encyclopedic. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• possible speedy delete as spam... even charities can spam. Hairhorn (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into United Way This is spammy but belongs there. --WngLdr34 (talk) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge and redirect to United Way as per WngLdr34, above. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into United Way per WngLdr34 ArcAngel (talk) 20:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge. As above. --Whoosit (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge: per the statements above, the article should be merged..South Bay (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Snow Merge: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into United Way. This sounds like an notable, interesting program, but doesn't warrant its own page. Shanata (talk) 03:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mark A. Meyer (Attorney)

Mark A. Meyer (Attorney) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mark A. Meyer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Typically tiresome resume, more or less lifted from here and here. He's met some famous people, but that doesn't mean he deserves space in an encyclopedia. Biruitorul ^Talk 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as I can't find sources that establish notability, so fails WP:GNG and WP:N. ArcAngel (talk) 20:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete -- notability not established, sources indicate pretty standard fare for any middling professional career. N2e (talk) 04:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Very very weak keep but redirect. If all of his listings in all of those Who's Who - type directories can be verified, then he is marginally about as notable as I am, which is to say, right on the edge. Nothing in the stub, which reads like an autobiography, notes whether he's been an officer in the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, nor whether he's been in the American Bar Association house of delegates, either of which could settle the issue in his favor. Yet there is one more problem: there is an attorney from North Dakota with the same name who is arguably, more notable [9]. If the consensus is to delete, I'll go along with that, too. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I see nothing convincing in the article that would assert notability. Independent coverage is minuscule (as far as I can tell, reduced to a one short mention of his visit with Iliescu, as issued by a gvt press agency); the rest is promotional and merely attests that Meyer exists (which I think no one is doubting). Among the chaotic and unconvincing "references", a Wikipedia article is cited for some reason I can't begin to fathom. The person is non-notable, the article is garbage. Dahn (talk) 15:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DubLi

DubLi (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "DubLi" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Disputed prod. Non-notable company with still no reliable independent sources. The reference to Jordin Sparks doesn't even mention this company. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this website is not notable in any way that I can see, and in fact seems like promotion as the article reads like an advertisement. ArcAngel (talk) 20:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete it's just an advertisement. Eeekster (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete non-notable, besides the fact that it's a well-executed scam. Alternatively, find some real journalistic sources to cite. Good luck with that. 72.214.62.234 (talk) 21:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Clearly this article is an attempt to advertise the web site, which doesn't seem notable from what I can tell from searching for sources (I can't come up with anything but press releases). -- Atama頭 23:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, unless they can cite some noteworthy (i.e. non-Dubli) citations.--64.201.38.62 (talk) 23:58, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was merge to Doctor Who (series 4). MuZemike 02:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Who campfire trailer

Doctor Who campfire trailer (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Doctor Who campfire trailer" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete, or merge into Doctor Who (series 4), or move to a Doctor Who wiki. I like Doctor Who, and I generally try to improve DW related articles where I can. This is a well written article, but I can't see how a trailer for the series can qualify as notable. As far as I can tell, the advert has not received any advertising awards or prizes, and no coverage whatsoever in the mainstream media. Yes, it was released theatrically, but that could apply to any number of trailers, especially Hollywood films. That certainly doesn't make it notable, and Wikipedia is not the right place to hold such an article. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 18:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge to Doctor Who (series 4), agree, this doesn't meet notability guidelines of itself. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • In what way does it fail WP:N? Rlendog (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree that it is unusual that a trailer would be notable. On the other hand, this trailer did receive coverage in multiple sources, so appears to meet the general notability requirements. And it managed to be promoted to a good article, so even if the notability is less than normal, I'd give the benefit of the doubt to not deleting a GA. And anyway, I'm not sure deletion is appropriate at all - given the significant sourced content, at worst a merge should be considered (even the nom seems to acknowledge this). For which a merge discussion would be more appropriate than AfD. But, given its GA status, I don't even think we should consider merging unless it fails a GAR. And if merged, the content would still remain due to the sourced content, so given that it at least has marginal notability based on significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, I think keeping this one makes most sense. Rlendog (talk) 20:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The article has four inline citation, three of which are Doctor Who Magazine two of which are from the Doctor Who News Page, meaning it has only 2 3 actual sources. It's worth pointing out that GA criteria has no mention of notability, so trying to get this article delisted through a review on those grounds would be fairly futile. In any case, even featured articles can be put under AfD nominations, so I don't think good article status should mean we automatically preserve this article's content. Having said that, I agree with Rlendog and OrangeDog that merging, rather than deletion, seems the best course here, but I do not think this article should remain independent. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 22:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Point taken on the lack of GA criteria on notability (although FAs do have that criterion). I don't think that GA status should automatically preserve an article, but I think it is unusual to delete (or even merge) a GA and thus some additional caution is warranted. There are actually three different sources used, since the first two come from the now defunct Outpost Gallifrey site, not Doctor Who Magazine, but even two sources can satisfy the criteria of WP:N, and do we know that there are no other sources that just don't happen to be cited in the article? Rlendog (talk) 22:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - Has the article creator (User:Sceptre) been notified of this AfD? Per, WP:AfD, "while not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." While it is hardly necessary to inform the creator of every stub or WP:CRYSTAL AfD nomination, it seems appropriate when a GA is being nominated. Rlendog (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge per OrangeDog, not individually notable. And just how the HELL is this GA-class? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I was surprised to see that it was a GA, but there was a valid GA template indicating it went through the proper process. Rlendog (talk) 14:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Notable given the OG citations which are sufficient enough to confer notability by virtue of being reliable. Yes, the site is down. We're just waiting for Gallifrey Base to update their link structure. And even if this isn't notable under N, it definitely counts as summary style to Doctor Who (series 4) Sceptre ^(talk) 02:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I usually notify article creators, I forgot in this case. I don't see how citing Outpost Gallifrey makes a topic notable though; that seems to imply that anything mentioned in any reputable source is automatically notable, which I would disagree with. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's the baseline for notability:

"If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."

"Significant coverage"

Yes, the sources address the trailer almost exclusively.

"Reliable secondary sources"

Outpost Gallifrey has been held up to fit this in FAC discussions, so it should be good enough for AFD.

"Independent of the subject"

Again, OG has been held to fit this in previous AFDs.

So, we can presume this satisfies the inclusion criteria, and even if it doesn't, it's a proper spinout of the series article, because merging it back would create undue emphasis on it. Instead of targeting well-sourced GAs about fiction, why not target unsourced articles with no real world information? If this AFD ends up as anything except a "keep", I would be very disappointed with the application of notability standards. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I dispute that interpretation. I can't see how citing Doctor Who Magazine, Outpost Gallifrey and one branding agency signify "Significant coverage" under any stretch of the imagination. If articles about this trailer had appeared in the national press and on the BBC website then it would be different. I don't dispute these sources' reliability, but constructing an article about a tv series trailer out of a few minor articles is bordering on fan cruft. To reiterate, I think merging into Doctor Who (series 4) is the best option. YeshuaDavid • Talk • 17:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The adjective "significant" does not refer to how many sources it has, it refers to how much the source covers. One secondary source, or, if you want to be pedantic, two, is enough to establish notability. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge the links and references to Series 4. Doc Quintana (talk) 04:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge "a forty-second television trailer" is much less than an episode, I do not see separate comment on the trailer. I see one article about the promotion campaign for the new series, including the trailer, & the 3 articles in the magazine, which is just barely an independent source. I'm not particularly concerned with sourcing--one can argue a sourcing argument in either direction. What I am concerned with in the excessive breakdown of articles into subunits. Even most characters should be ordinarily merged into combination articles . I consider GA status irrelevant to the discussion--it deals with the content of the article. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak merge but not because there's anything wrong with the content: it's well structured and apparently wasn't created until, several weeks after web-based anticipation of the trailer and release, it was written about in a reliable secondary source (Doctor Who Magazine). I note that at Talk:Doctor Who campfire trailer, Sceptre points out a good reason against merging: it might unbalance the target article, even if placed at the end. But maybe it still isn't a discrete subject, and it may make more sense in context, since the subject of the trailer is Doctor Who (series 4). If there is a merge, the article about the series would need quite a lot of work. The main reason for merging seems that it is disproportionate given coverage of other subjects, even in cult TV, and might wrongly be used as a precedent, and from Wikipedia's point of view, there are already 1500 articles related to Doctor Who, and research could be done to improve those rather than create new ones (from Doctor Who fans' point of view, work could be done to create more fanzines...) --Cedders^tk 21:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep - Certainly notable and works perfectly well as a stand alone article. Jeni ^(talk) 22:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Logic

Enemy Logic (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Enemy Logic" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

DELETE for failing WP:BAND. I did an extensive Google News archive search and found nothing related. JBsupreme (talk) 18:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:BAND, and in fact, WP:MUSIC in general, is where it's at. I'm gonna nom their first album, which is found over here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 23:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• I checked a library database of newspaper and magazine articles, but was not able to find any sources that would help to establish WP:N notability. Delete unless sources are forthcoming. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete.  Sandstein  18:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Microvision Incorporated

Microvision Incorporated (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Microvision Incorporated" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A promo of a nonnotable business - Altenmann >t 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

P.S to those who will be doing google check: do not confuse with Microvision. - Altenmann >t 17:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete not notable IJA (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable as per WP:CORP. They make lasers for barcode scanners. If one will forgive me for putting my tongue in my cheek, it's depressing that these lasers aren't even outfitted for mounting on the heads of friggin' sharks. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 19:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for failing WP:CORP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above. No way this business is going to ever become a household name. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The company has just (literally, within the last week) shipped its picoprojector product. Since picoprojectors are a current "hot" technology item, it would be short-sighted to delete the article right at the moment the company actually does something you guys might consider relevant. (In any case, the comments for delete above show that the commentators don't even know what Microvision does for barcode scanners - they *don't* make the lasers, they make the scanning MEMS mirrors and assembly. Is a vote for delete relevant from someone who knows too little about a subject to actually comment on its notability?) As per WP:CORP, in fact, I cite: http://www.engadget.com/2009/09/16/microvisions-show-wx-pico-projector-out-soon/ (and numerous other articles from gadget sites over the last year and a bit) 81.156.5.130 (talk) 17:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 02:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abkhazia–Venezuela relations

Abkhazia–Venezuela relations (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is no new notable information on this article, which isn't already covered on "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", this article just repeats what the international recognition article says and thus this article is redundant. Also I don't think this article is notable. Venezuela simply recognising Abkhazia is not a reason to make an article regarding their diplomatic relations. If they are to conduct in diplomatic relations it could simply be added to "Foreign relations of Abkhazia" and "Foreign relations of Venezuela", but there is nothing special/ unique between the relations of Abkhazia and Venezuela. IJA (talk) 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Since I'm the nominator. IJA (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Sounds more esoteric than it is. There has already been news coverage of this. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment yes there has been news coverage and this information is already featured on "International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia", why repeat it twice? IJA (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but given that this is Hugo Chavez, that tilts the scales. I agree that ordinarily, if this was say a less controversial leader, it would not warrant an article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - already covered at International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia; we don't need a new article every time someone grants recognition to Abkhazia. Also, this is mainly a stunt and we probably won't hear much about the relationship after this, as was the case with Abkhazia–Nicaragua relations. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable. Based just on a brief exchange of diplomatic words which, ironically, are more related to the Russian-Venezuela relations than to the Ab-V diplomacy. The article is not expandable in the foreseeable future. The same is true for the South Ossetia–Venezuela relations. --Kober^Talk 19:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The claim that "this article just repeats what the international recognition article says and thus this article is redundant" is false. The international recognition article has 54 words under the Venezuela entry, meanwhile the Abkhazia–Venezuela relations article has 155 words, including sourced comments from Abkhazian and Venezuelan leaders on the relationship. There are over 300,000 results for "Venezuela recognizes Abkhazia" on Google [10] so there is a significant interest in the relations between the two countries. As one of the first nations to recognize Abkhazia, don't think that Venezuela's friendly gesture will be forgotten in Sukhum. --Tocino 22:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. First off, Abkhaz sentiments towards Venezuela is not a valid reason to have a Wikipedia article on the virtually non-existent relations. Second, "recognition" is indeed a notable topic and is covered where it should be. The article is about the bilateral diplomatic relations, not recognition. Again, the article's content is limited to a few statements by diplomats. Wikipedia is neither a news collection, nor a Wikisource. --Kober^Talk 04:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Yes there may be more words on this article, but as I have said there is no new notable information on this article. All this article says is that Venezuela recognised Abkhazia and that they intend to engage in diplomacy. That is basically it, there are no other notable incidents regarding foreign relations. Also google hits are not to be used to support arguments on wikipedia IJA (talk) 10:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep As Tocino explains, this is a sufficiently important topic in its own right. DGG ( talk ) 03:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable per substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. It would probably be best merged somewhere more appropriate, but c'est la vie. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The subject of the article is clearly notable as shown by User:Tocino. Thus the nominator's claim that there is no new notable information on this article can't be a reason for deletion, but, quite the contrary, for improvement. Whytye (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Abkhazia is not a state, the article is definitely OR, as per nom. Iberieli (talk) 03:44, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Well, according to Venezuela, Abkhazia is a state. --Tocino 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. The relations have already received a lot of press, and there are plenty of reliable sources. Offliner (talk) 09:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Venezuela is one of only three countries that recognizes Abkhazia so bilateral relations are quite significant. Also, there's been alot of press on this matter. 189.105.6.109 (talk) 11:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. This article adds nothing to what is already in International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, i.e. it discusses recognition. According to the text of the article, relations haven't actually been established yer, only discussions about the possibility of establishing relations. Abkhazia doesn't even have a seat on in the UN. --Martintg (talk) 05:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment Being a non-UN member state does not prevent Abkhazia from having diplomatic relations with other countries. --Tocino 19:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment You'd then expect this category not to exist at all, wouldn't you? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No point in having a stand-alone article at this point. Also, the article focuses exclusively on V's recognition of A, and this would seem to fall under WP:NOTNEWS. Finally, the sources identified thus far do not constitute "significant coverage" (as defined by WP:GNG) for the topic of A-V relations. Yilloslime ^T_C 17:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep If we have dozens of articles on Kosovo's foreign relationships, why delete this? _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Mona Lisa (film, 2009)

Mona Lisa (film, 2009) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Mona Lisa (film, 2009)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails future film guidelines - film is listed as being in devleopment on IMDb and principal filming has not yet started. Lugnuts (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nominator. This article has no references, it is less than a stub and it uses poor grammar. I would be willing to change my vote if the article is heavily updated, but till then it will remain a "delete" from me. Regards IJA (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for now. Even if filming had started, it should be at Mona Lisa (2011 film). OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 20:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: per nominator. Shanata (talk) 04:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The article needs improvement, but this is a matter for the usual writing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald I. Meshbesher

Ronald I. Meshbesher (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Ronald I. Meshbesher" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The article about this attorney does not, and probably will not, reach the substantial level of notability to warrant an encyclopedia article. The notability, even within the Twin Cities, isn't even clear --simply being the named partner of a small (less than 40 attorney) law firm isn't substantial enough. While I realize trial attorneys rarely have larger law firms, I also do not see the same level of notability of trial attorneys like Gerry Spence or Joe Jamail. As such, I recommend deletion. Bobak (talk) 17:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WeakKeep. Appears to be notable, and his career goes back ages. Mention in Coen film (great name!) helps a bit. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Changing to Keep. I'm satisfied he satisfies the notability requirement, whether or not he is a "legend."--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong Keep. Ron Meshbesher is a legend in the Midwest. That's exactly why the Coen brothers are using his name in their film. He represented some of the most well known cases in Midwest including the Piper Kidnapping, Ming Sen Shiue case, the Elisabeth Congdon murder trial...http://www.lawandpolitics.com/minnesota/default.asp?section=ARTICLES&module=ITEM&id=302 --Lhc67 —Preceding undated comment added 20:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC).

• Comment Reply to above comment. Please note that there may be a conflict of interest WP:COI because you are participating in a deletion discussion of an article that you created. See [11]. Also, it does not mean that by writting "Strong Keep", your article will not be deleted, especially if you are the creator. For an article to be deleted, Wikipedia users will give their opinion on whether it will be deleted or keept. Everyone's opinion counts. Therefore, if you want to comment or to justify why this article should not be deleted, I suggest you to write "Comment" instead of "Strong Keep". Thanks! Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC) Sometimes I lose my head and don't know what am I writting ;)... Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 02:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Starting an article does not mean you have a COI in an AfD like this.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep I deprodded it a couple days ago. There are plenty of gnews hits on him, some with significant coverage. "Ron Meshbesher" gives better search results than his full name. Also, article creation does not count as conflict of interest, and the norm is to write "Keep" or "Delete" if that is one's intention in AfD debates.John Z (talk) 21:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete, unless those who wish to keep are willing to expend the effort to keep a single-purpose account, whose only undeleted contributions (save two) are related to the page's subject, from continuing to treat this page as an unencylopedic hagiography. Kablammo (talk) 16:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Enigma^msg 00:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Messinho

Messinho (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Messinho" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a fake article created by vandal Jergsenkrupp (talk) —Lesfer ^(t/c/@) 17:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following page for the same reason:

Ângelo Aston (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Hoaxes. No-one of either name in Flamengo's first-team squad. The only person of anything resembling either name in Flamengo (sports club)'s wiki is a paralympic athlete called Claudemir. The Brazilian FA have a full list of players registered since the year dot, at www.cbf.com.br/bid/book.pdf (3500 pages of PDF, don't try and load it unless you really, really want to :-) there are a number of Claudemir dos Santos, but no-one of "Messinho"'s full name or date of birth, no Messinho, no Aston. Hoaxes. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hoaxes. Good work by both the nominator and Struway2 in spotting them / proving their fakeability (like notability, but for fakes!) GiantSnowman 20:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as hoaxes -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as blatant hoaxes Spiderone 20:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete both as hoaxes (due to the research of both Jergenkrupp and Struway2). DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment: I tagged both of them for speedy deletion. Joe Chill (talk) 23:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu

Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

As it stands there is no evidence that this player meets WP:ATHLETE or WP:GNG. As this discussion points out, having a stadium named after you doesn't necessarily make you notable. Spiderone 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 16:14, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Having something named after you doesn't infer notability. GiantSnowman 16:27, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Redirect to Abdurrahman Roza Haxhiu Stadium. He might not be notable, but the stadium named after him is. --Angelo (talk) 08:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge with the stadium article, at this point it doesn't even have enough to warrant a subsection --just a sentence-- in the stadium article. --Bobak (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• I agree with Angelo.romano. I can find sources documenting the stadium (albeit not to great depth). I cannot find anything documenting the person whom it is named after. The redirect, that didn't require AFD, was and is the way to go. Uncle G (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Okay, I just didn't want to redirect it just in case someone found proof he played for Albania. Spiderone 12:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Strange one this is, I was wondering if he was mentioned on Albania national football team and he isn't. No citation so I would go with delete. Govvy (talk) 10:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
  • He is, however, mentioned in roughly metre-high letters on the roof of the stadium building. Have a picture. ☺ So there's nothing wrong with a redirect here. It doesn't require administrator tools to enact a redirect. Uncle G (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete after 21 days. My personal opinion is that it should be redirected to the album but that's an editorial decision. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Snuff (song)

Snuff (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Snuff (song)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

contested prod, lacks 3rd party sources, does not meet WP:NSONGS RadioFan (talk) 20:34, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• This page should be deleted. The band haven't confirmed if it will even be a single yet, only Metal Hammer. So we have absolutely no clue, because it has not been officialy confirmed. I don't think Wikipedia needs a page based on something that is not YET fact. Bring the page back if the fact is proven later, but for now, this is a speculation page. Epeu (talk) 03:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment the reference added is an ad from the band in a music publication. As a primary source it doesn't do much to establish the notability of this topic. It may be notable one day, but not today.--RadioFan (talk) 22:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 13:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Pause the discussion and start over in a few weeks. Without reliable sources independent of the band, it should go away; HOWEVER, the single will be released in 5 days. It is a well formatted article with some prose and there is no point in losing that. The bands fans should do the work and make sure it has sources to show notability within the next few days. Miami33139 (talk) 15:36, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'd agree if there was a good encyclopedic article here that simply needed proper references, but that is not the case. It's original research. Not worth keeping. This article should be deleted. It may be recreated later when it can meet notability guidelines.--RadioFan (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. FMQB indicates that the song has been released to Active Rock and Alternative radio formats, and as of October 1, 2009, Mediabase's daily updates at AllAccess.com (membership required, unfortunately, so I can't add a direct link; if there's an equivalent out there I'd appreciate it) place "Snuff" at number 33 and number 47 on the aforementioned formats, respectively. Gongshow ^⊕ 04:02, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The article now appears accurate and meets WP:NOTE. Shanata (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - The article claims (admittedly without sources) that the song charted. Unless that is inaccurate, the song meets WP:NSONGS. Rlendog (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The subject's biography, while not unsourced, certainly lacks the quality of sources one would like to see. However, consensus is to keep this article, and an alternative argument as to notability as been made and accept within this discussion. While this is a BLP, it is not negative in tone, and does the subject no harm. I would encourage those interested in this article to find sources, however, as I suspect the outcome could be different on a subsequent nomination. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 13:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Felicity Barr

Felicity Barr (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Felicity Barr" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Doesn't satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:CREATIVE (which includes journalists), hasn't been widely cited by peers or successors, no new concepts/techniques/major roles/critical attention or significant contributions. ƒ(Δ)² 08:45, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep of course - surely this person has been nominated in error. Every football fan in the London knows who she is, she used to present Goals Extra. She was also presented ITV news regularly a few years ago. It's outrageous someone even considered nominating her for deletion. Tris2000 (talk) 09:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see you're new to Wikipedia, so I'll take some time to explain how notability works. To qualify as notable (i.e., to warrant an article on Wikipedia), every topic/person/anything else has to satisfy the notability guidelines. The notability guidelines may differ for each specific topic, and the notability criteria for journalists is given at WP:CREATIVE. It would be helpful if you could spare a few minutes and go through the criteria. Of course, I'm just assuming good faith here. It's perfectly possible that you're more experienced in AfDs then I think, and that you genuinely feel this person is notable. If so, please point out the exact criterion which Felicity Barr satisfies, and please avoid arguments like "everyone knows who she is" and "it is outrageous nominating her for deletion". If you have any further queries you may post them here or on my talk page. Regards, ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm not new to Wikipedia at all. Well, I guess it's how you define "new". I started editing in July 2003 and have created a few articles since then. I've also made 850 contributions/edits. So no, I'm not "new". I am aware of WP:CREATIVE. She is just simply too much of a well known figure, in my eyes, to merit deletion. She would present the news alongside Sir Trevor McDonald, certainly the most famous newsreader in Britain if not one of the most famous in the world. It's hard to think what more Felicity could do to make a name for herself. She is one of the few female SPORTS newsreaders out there. In case you are confusing our Felicity with someone else, check out some of the pics on Google images - you'll instantly recognise her, I am sure, and realise her importance on our small screen. --Tris2000 (talk) 10:19, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep - she is possibly notable, but more sources would be helpful. --Cyclopia (talk) 13:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• That's just the problem, you see. I don't see any sources indicating notability. ƒ(Δ)² 06:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• My opinion is that notability guidelines must be interpreted with a grain of salt and commonsense. Google searches show that, while there's indeed a lack of third party sources, she has had a remarkable TV career (her cv, her Al Jazeera page or her old ITV page. This means she is most probably a well known person by many and her career can be reliably enough documented by her CV and similar sources. As such I think she deserves a stub, and a tag to indicate that sources are needed, more than deletion. --Cyclopia (talk) 09:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I get your point (and Tris' above). It comes down to whether the policy should be followed to the letter. Perhaps WP:IAR is applicable here. Or perhaps a CV isn't a reliable source. Depends on your POV, I suppose. ƒ(Δ)² 10:36, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• The problem with CV is that it is a primary source. I agree that secondary sources are needed. However in a deletion debate I personally also consider if the information is truly worthless or not. In this case, we're not dealing with the everyday vanity page, but with a subject where a case for notability, even if not sanctioned by third-party sources, can be reliably established. For sure the article needs love and editors must be encouraged to find third-party sources, but deletion seems to me too drastic in this case. --Cyclopia (talk) 10:43, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I see what you mean. My stance differs from yours though. My opinion is that if no reliable sources can be found to justify notability, then a BLP should be deleted (even if, as you say, the primary source indicates notability). I tend to favor my deletionist side when dealing with BLPs. Maybe that's getting in the way here. ƒ(Δ)² 10:53, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I must first of all say it is a pleasure to talk with you. Even if we disagree, you're debating with utmost civility, and looking how bitter and blunt become many WP discussions, I am really happy of having met you. That said, well, I do not agree with what I perceive as a bit of paranoia on BLPs, but that's not the forum to discuss it. About the AfD, I'd say we should wait for more editors to jump in. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. I won't say anything more on this topic. ƒ(Δ)² 11:16, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

• I think you should be welcome to intervene and further discuss whenever other editors participate and bring their arguments. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep. The phrasing of the GNG is problematic with required to prominent journalists,especially TV journalists, compounding the difficulties in searching caused by the difficulty in crafting searches that distinguish between stories about them and stories covered by them. The guideline needs to be applied carefully rather than mechanically. For TV journalists, it would probably be better to apply an analog of WP:ENT. As famous and genuinely notable as he was, Walter Cronkite would probably have had GNG issues for most of his career. Clearly WP:IAR should be considered if a policy needs citation. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note to the closing admin Please refer to the discussion here. Consensus (6 vs 1 [where 1 is Hullaballoo Wolfowitz]) is that WP:ENTERTAINER does not apply to journalists or TV newsreaders. ƒ(Δ)² 17:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a brief, low-profile discussion started and "closed" by you without even having the courtesy to notify me of the potential debate. It ignores the well-establish practice/consensus that more than one notability guideline (eg, WP:PROF, WP:AUTHOR) may apply to an article. And it never addresses what the guideline actually says, particularly with regard to "television personalities" and "opinion makers." Finally, that 6-1 "consensus" counts each of your posts as a separate !vote, which is pretty pathetic. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's still open, if you wish to comment there. I haven't closed it. I wanted a third opinion; I already know yours. Additionally (I've mentioned this before) I don't think multiple policies apply here at all so well-established practice or not, it doesn't apply here. At all. And finally, I'm not counting each of my own posts as a separate !vote, I'm counting the comments left by other editors in that discussion. Please get your facts straight. Cheers, ƒ(Δ)² 10:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per consensus that this does not belong on Wikipedia and, in my opinion, WP:CSD#G3 vandalism. Thryduulf (talk) 21:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rindiddig

Rindiddig (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Rindiddig" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Page contains no more information on this word then a dictionary definition, so does not pass WP:NOTDIC. Also, the person has said on their user page that they made this up, so page does not pass WP:MADEUP. As well as this there are no google hits, or google dictionary hits so WP:NEO seems to apply to this page Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC) P.S. PROD was contested by creator - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per CSD-G1 (patent nonsense) Also delete as per WP:NOTDIC and WP:MADEUP per nom. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  Hi there, and thanks for your !vote. But please remember that G1 only applies to pages where the content is either a random string of characters (e.g. "gfbgnbv"), or it is so completely confused that you can not possibly make sense of it (e.g. "Hello green lol sky is black starts pretty turns gone"), see WP:PN for more wonderful cases of gibberish ;). In this case it's fairly easy to make sense of the page, so I don't think that G1 is appropriate. Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• You're correct - just my misinterpretation of what criterion it would fall under, but it still qualifies as speedy deletion, no doubt. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 17:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete. Obviously. (Kingpin - if it is a patently deletable, why fuss over which criterion applies - would you accept vandalism?) — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

  I'd accept IAR :), but would rather call it WP:SNOW, if that's not too fussy (I don't want any vegetables today! ;D) - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:MADEUP. Obviously, everything was made up at some time, but the guideline makes clear that notability must be established outside of WP. (and there are no references in Google outside of WP) By the way, this article is a perfect example of why I think that newly created articles should have a default NOINDEX template until reviewed for possible deletion. This editor has achieved their desired purpose, as the word is now found in Google, an achievement not as likely if posted to, say a personal web site. Deleting this article will minimize, but not eliminate the damage. While the damage it admittedly minor, it could easily have been prevented.--SPhilbrickT 17:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete I don't think I need to say why. IJA (talk) 17:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete since this is made up. Speedy delete since common sense dictates we should. JBsupreme (talk) 18:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete Snowball clause, WP:MADEUP and spam. I don't think it would be unfair for a nonadmin to delete.--WngLdr34 (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:MADEUP. ArcAngel (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Userfy.. No consensus that article meets inclusion guidelines, and article creator has agreed to work on it in his user space. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 14:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jerry Acuff

Jerry Acuff (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jerry Acuff" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Prod removed by creator. No reliable sources given (or found) to demonstrate notability of an individual. Having been to the White House is not a valid claim to notability. tedder (talk) 06:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete/Userfy A Google News Search suggests to me that he might be notable enough for an article, as a recognized expert in his field, but to establish him as such here would require a completely new article with many cited sources. As there are no citations here, there's nothing worth keeping. But from the Talk page it looks like the creator knows the article is currently inadequate but didn't realize it would be a problem; he seems ready and willing to work on improving it in his userspace. Propaniac (talk) 15:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note the few news articles I saw seemed to be from PR and less-reliable sources. If I missed some, please say so. tedder (talk) 19:55, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, I am sorry this is causing such a problem, I obviously need help crafting the article properly. The fact that you won't find that many reference's to Jerry on a simple Google search is because of the industry he is in. He is a leading voice in Pharmaceutical selling, and if you are not familiar with that industry, most of what people discuss about selling is limited to that industry and would not be in trade rags or lots of website. Jerry has several published books and is an avid speaker and teaches at a university. What am I missing to satisfy that he is indeed a leading individual in his area? I have already agreed to take this down and work on it in my own space. It just seems like the only comments have been critical, with only one person actually offering me help. Isn't this a community of people supporting each other? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jrpsu (talk • contribs) 22:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Jrpsu, this is a community, but new pages that appear to be created as a conflict of interest or to advertise an entity are often not looked upon terribly well. Removing the proposed deletion looks that way too. If you know how, feel free to do it (edit the article, create User:Jrpsu/Jerry Acuff, then say so here). Otherwise I'll simply move it over, if you'd like me to.

Even though the industry is (supposedly) quiet, that's true of many industries and topics- my obsession, motorcycling, has the same thing. Anyhow, WP:V is probably the most important thing you can read right now. In other words, Wikipedia is all about reliable sources and verifiability, not truth. Write the article first, don't hope the house will build itself. Drop by my talk page for further guidance. tedder (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Weak Keep. Sure it's a horrid article, but the man has authored three books for Wiley, as well as being CEO of something.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 17:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• weak delete It looks like the sourcing just doesn't pass WP:BIO, but I'm willing to change my mind if more sourcing is presented. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The reversion to the fictional character makes this discussion moot. Kevin (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Jason Porter

Jason Porter (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Jason Porter" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable rap artist. JaGa^talk 16:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete isn't this Spam and WP:Advertising? --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per everything above. --Bobak (talk) 17:27, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 20:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't seem to pass WP:MUSIC nor WP:GNG. ArcAngel (talk) 20:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: The article was originally about a fictional footballer from Dream Team. It was hijacked (by KingRitz) and turned into an article about a non-notable rapper. –  LATICS  talk  23:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep I've restored the article to the last version before it was hijacked. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Elect the Dead Symphony. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elect the Dead Orchestra

Elect the Dead Orchestra (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Elect the Dead Orchestra" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Not an article. No sources, appears to be cut/paste from part of a template. Durova³¹¹ 15:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete this probably could be speedied under criteria G1, G2, or A1. Deserted Cities 04:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep. The artist is unquestionably notable but very little info for this future release is available, would like to see a release date. The most useful third party reference I can find is this plus there is this from his webpage. Interestingly, what little info is on the page is wrong, it isn't a studio album, it's a live DVD; I'll work on the page a bit. J04n(talk page) 00:56, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

• Redirect. After editing the page I discovered that Elect the Dead Symphony already exists, should be redirected to that page. J04n(talk page) 01:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 16:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy Keep as snowball close. The assumed well-intentioned nominator is obviously not aware of the overwhelming precedent. There has been sufficient discussion here and an avalanche of consecutive keeps to make it reasonable to conclude that this nomination has no chance to succeed. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 23:11, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Summit School (Queens, New York)

Summit School (Queens, New York) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Summit School (Queens, New York)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No reliable sources about the school. Don't see how this could be notable. A list confirming a school on a New York department of education is not enough. That is like a New York listing of all the orphanages. But do orphanages ever get publicity? Generally no because nobody cares! People care more about schools than orphanages. It needs media coverage before editors can write about their programs. We need to know why a school should be included. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per the reasons in the first and second AfD both from less than three months ago. And what do we have against this particular high school anyway for this barrage of nominations? -SpacemanSpiff^{Calvin‡Hobbes} 16:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong keep, speedy close, per the two AFD discussions from less than three months ago. High schools are generally notable, and this is at best a dispute over the adequacy of the article's current sourcing rather that a genuine challenge to notability. At worst, it's a waste of time. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

According to this, Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2009 July 27 they suggested to wait for a month if nothing has changed. Well nothing has changed which is why I have nominated for deletion. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

High schools and all the rest of the articles on Wikipedia need to prove they are notable first before editors can write about them. Esthertaffet (talk) 16:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep per the reasoning of C.Fred in that Schools get the benefit of the doubt that they are notable unless proven otherwise, which is the case here. ArcAngel (talk) 20:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:CRYSTAL, which rejects claims that it will be important in the future as a reason to keep the article. We don't have to wait until the subject is notable. If it's not notable now, it should be deleted. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How is ArcAngel's statement under WP:CRYSTAL? Because we "give the benefit of the doubt?" The school is deemed notable because it exists, not because it might become notable. tedder (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The school needs to be notable in order to have its own article. Right now, I haven’t seen any sources that say it is notable. Therefore this school should be deleted. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. It’s not simply the school exist then it should have its own article. It needs to establish notability too. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Strong keep per the "high schools are inherently notable" !guideline, as well as references that the school actually exists (it isn't a hoax). tedder (talk) 21:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: High schools are inherently notable, see, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes( "Most elementary and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability are now getting merged or redirected in AfD, with high schools being kept except where they fail verifiability.") and Wikipedia:Other stuff exists (essay) ("As an example, generally speaking, any high school is deemed to be sufficiently notable for an article, but lower-level schools are generally not. While not a hard-and-fast rule, this is the status quo for Wikipedia inclusion and is consistently maintained through discussions of various schools, school districts, and their creatability and keepability (or lack thereof). Thus "inherent notability" is basically codification of OSE."). Three AfDs? --Milowent (talk) 21:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Can someone please tell me what makes this school notable? I haven't heard any reason. Esthertaffet (talk) 22:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's notable on Wikipedia because the consensus is that high schools are notable, provided the school exists. tedder (talk) 22:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

We have very few default rules around here, and this is a good and reasonable one. If we eliminated this one, we'd have enormous time-wasting debates over various schools. In the end, if a few notnotable schools end up in the project (and i'm not saying this one isn't notable), its probably well worth it. --Milowent (talk) 22:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It needs reliable sources, sources that provide information on the subject not if the school exists or not. If that was the case then every single orphanage should have its own article as it exist. I don't think it's fair that we should keep this school when all the other orphanages are not. Orphanages exist and are important in a community as it takes care of children. This school is simply a special school that isolates children from the mainstream. Why should we include this school when orphanages are not kept? Esthertaffet (talk) 22:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep All high schools are notable. The information in the article is easily verified by this entry from the New York State Education Department. Cunard (talk) 22:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Minimalism. The content has already been merged so a redirect must be kept. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Minimalism (technical communication)

Minimalism (technical communication) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

I've merged this article into the Minimalism page, which considers minimalism in various arts.LCP (talk) 15:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed you have, in this edit. Therefore the edit history must be kept, so that you are not falsely credited with writing that was actually done by Bobdoyle and others. Deletion forms no part of the article merger process at any stage. Please follow that process. That includes using the correct edit summaries when you do mergers, so that edit history and author credit isn't lost or falsified. Uncle G (talk) 18:03, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 21:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Free Charity Cars

Free Charity Cars (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Free Charity Cars" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

The article reads entirely as an advertisement and would need a rewrite to become encyclopedic. While there are third party references in the References section, the article does nothing to assert the notability of the subject, instead it just explains the benefits of the program and features of the web site. Aka042 (talk) 15:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Further note: I looked through the references and could not find any that link 800Charity Cars to Free Charity Cars, while the article alleges that the two are linked. All external references discuss 800Charity Cars only. --Aka042 (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as spam Miami33139 (talk) 15:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete There are no reliable sources that discuss this Social Networking Site. It appears to be an advertisement to increase the visibility of the site. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Death to Spam, all hail somewhat decent posts? but yeah this is clearly Spam and against WP:Advertising --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, delete with fire! --Bobak (talk) 17:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Promotional material. Notability is questionable. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 21:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Kevin (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Rickett

Chris Rickett (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Chris Rickett" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Autobiographical Lawrence Ryan (talk) 14:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment no recommendation at this time but, being an autobigraphy is not a reason to delete an article. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 15:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I listed this article for deletion for a number of reasons that stem from it being an autobiography that are listed as issues on the article's page. These include:

1. Peacock Terms: Since the author is the subject of the wiki, they propped up any successes that they may have (debatable) achieved.

2. The neutrality is disputed because it is autobiographical. The author only represents the positive accomplishments he felt that he made, while ignoring all of the negatives that he was involved in at the same time. He was a politician, and each and every politician overlooks all of the negative acts they committed in favor of the positive acts.

3. His notability is in question. He served one 3-year term as a municipal city councillor. Is this sufficient to be notable and included in an encyclopedia? If so, then there ought to be millions of pages on wikipedia for all of the insignificant city councillors that ever served.

4. It is certainly a biased viewpoint because the subject of the the wiki was the author himself. Lawrence Ryan (talk) 18:31, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Having Peacock terms is a reason to edit an article not delete it. Questionable neutrality is also a reason to edit an article, not delete it.
• Delete - I can not find any indication that he is notable in general terms or as a politician ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Location (talk) 04:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 23:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The Digestive Hour

The Digestive Hour (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "The Digestive Hour" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This is a recently coined word, covered with a semi-scientific explanation JoJan (talk) 15:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. Looks pretty much like something made up one day - the reference to "Moore, Duong et al." seems to mean those are the names of the students who came up with it. No reliable sources that I can find. Olaf Davis (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Clear WP:MADEUP Violation. --WngLdr34 (talk) 16:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. No substantial mention in any reliable secondary sources that I can find. Appears to be a neologism. —gorgan_almighty (talk) 16:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per nom. --Bobak (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete. A rather amusing hoax. Nice try, guys, but this one has to be excreted. No offense.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:02, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete under the invisible CSD provision for hoaxes and nonsense. JBsupreme (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It's a something made up one day. These guys are trying to be humorous, and even succeeding, but Wikipedia is not a humor magazine, it's an encyclopedia. Invertzoo (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Speedy delete - notability not asserted. Kevin (talk) 01:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Addison Steel

Addison Steel (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Addison Steel" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Seemingly not notable musician/songwriter. Without additional sources, this article fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:RS. OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 07:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - CSD G4: Recreation of deleted material. I tagged this article per A7 previously, and it was deleted. ceranthor 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically, I believe G4 is for articles which have been created after a closed AfD discussion, rather than re-creation after being subject to CSD. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 08:35, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

[edit] Alberto Abed Schekaiban

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page..

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to delete. A merge can be discussed on the article talk page. Eluchil404 (talk) 08:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Braeburn Capital

Braeburn Capital (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Braeburn Capital" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Hasn't been updated, doesn't meet the WP:N guidelines. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk.universe 22:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Money management arm of Apple computers. Notable coverage. A bit boring, but manages $26 billion. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge back to Apple Computers. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fever-True

Fever-True (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fever-True" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable product. Pseudomonas_(talk) 18:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. No assertion of notability, promotional, though not blatant enough to be a G11. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as per all above. --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement of patent nostrum.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 18:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Spam for non-notable product.
• comment. The creating editor also has EL-spammed the Feverfew article, and created Tanetin, another spam article, which I've nominated for Speedy. TJRC (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Nominator has withdrawn but IMHO this discussion has been open long enough and has enough participation for a "keep" close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function

Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Fowler-Noll-Vo hash function" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Article is unsupported by any reliable sources. The article topic is not notable enough for reliable sources right now. It does not seem that this topic should be in the wikipedia at present- prime-based hash functions are two a penny. Moreover, this article links only to sources controlled by User:Landon_Curt_Noll and is largely written by him. Phil Spectre (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The new, shorter version is acceptable, so I'd like to withdraw this AfD. I'm not sure how to do it officially, though. Is it ok for me to just remove the notice on the page? Phil Spectre (talk) 01:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• I don't support deletion of this article. The article has 24 different editors (not counting bots) so I don't think it is fair to say that it "is largely written by [Landon_Curt_Noll]", indeed the article was not even originally created by Landon_Curt_Noll. Good non-cryptographic hash functions are not "two a penny", they are hard to design to get good results. Most hash function designers concentrate upon cryptographically strong hashes that are a lot slower. So there is definitely a place for the non-cryptographic alternatives that are faster. The FNV happens to fulfil a requirement in non-secure situations. The fasm project is well known and uses FNV for internal table lookups. From what I have seen the FNV hash has been around for some time now and seems to be quite well respected. HumphreyW (talk) 01:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The criteria for an article are WP:RS and WP:N, not whether you think it's a good hash. Notability is not earned by association: there is a precedent that being used by a notable project doesn't make the hash notable. And I looked at fasm but it doesn't even mention FNV. As for reliability, all of the sources are just Noll. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, I didn't realise the fasm article does not mention it. But the authors site has it mentioned here. HumphreyW (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
      • The way I see it, the fact that fasm didn't, and still doesn't, mention FNV means that this hash isn't all that important a part. Either way, there are still no reliable sources and it's not notable. Phil Spectre (talk) 02:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Well of course an assembler is not going to make big news about the internal hash functions used, that wouldn't make sense. I am not sure how one would really objectively judge notability, but a quick Google search returns 154000 results. If even 1/10th of those results are unique then that seems significant to me. There are a large number of pages linking to the Wikipedia FNV page, deleting the FNV page would break a significant number of websites. In the Google results we can find mentions at NIST and MSDN. HumphreyW (talk) 02:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
          • MurmurHash was recently deleted, and it has about as many mentions on Google, so that can't be enough. The precedent is that you need reliable sources to confirm notability, not just tens of thousands of hits on Google. Phil Spectre (talk) 11:17, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
          • As Phil Spectre says, counting Google hits is not research. Google hit counts are estimates, not actual counts. They have no value. So stop counting hits and start citing sources. That's the way to make an argument for keeping that holds water. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per discussion with original proposer above. Both the Wikipedia page and the original source pages are mentioned and linked in too large a number of significant websites for me to consider the source as not reliable or not notable. HumphreyW (talk) 13:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
  • With all due respect, you're certainly entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts. The NIST link is not a WP:RS, since all it does it point to the same old Noll site, along with the one for MurmurHash, which was deleted due to a lack of reliable sources. If it doesn't count for that hash, why should it count for this one? The MSDN link is not only a blog, but it contradicts WP:N in that the MS employee states that MS has no intention of ever using FNV, and the comments from the peanut gallery point out FNV's terrible avalanche characteristics. If you want to keep it, you absolutely must prove its notability with reliable sources. Fortunately, this is not a vote. Phil Spectre (talk) 22:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's my first AfD and I forgot. Thanks for fixing it. Phil Spectre (talk) 22:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep There is certainly plenty of discussion of it online with lots of people referring to it as widely used. The only questionable part is the "reliable" requirement of WP:N, but that is largely for verifiability and the large number of medium-quality sources (university lectures, peer-reviewed academic publications using FNV, tech sites, etc.) make this quite verified in my mind. I think it's unreasonable to expect newspaper articles and things about even notable algorithms--I google the extremely notable heapsort and the source quality is not obviously better than for FNV. Gruntler (talk) 07:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Help me out here. How is FNV any more reliably sourced and notable than MurmurHash? Phil Spectre (talk) 03:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

FNV hash in google scholar [12] gives 105 articles. They are relevant. I see peer-reviewed articles, conference proceedings, lecture notes, etc indicating this algorithm's usage. Murmurhash in google scholar [13] gets three hits. Or compare searching Murmurhash on the .edu domain [14] versus FNV hash on the .edu domain [15], the sources are quite obviously better for FNV especially once you click past the first page. Gruntler (talk) 04:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, both hashes have some mentions on Google, but none of these sources have been included in their respective Wikipedia articles. The numbers are ambiguous, with MurmurHash having twice as many .edu references as FNV despite being more recent. Ultimately, if these are reliable sources, they should be added, not talked about here. This way, specific references could be researched and checked for reliability and relevance. Until then, we're only comparing one type of hand-waving against another. Phil Spectre (talk) 19:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Not on my internet, the linked searches on site:.edu above returned 1580 for FNV and 584 for Murmurhash. (You're searching "FNV" and not "Fowler-Noll-Vo," right?) Beyond numbers, the quality is just obviously better for FNV. The .edu search for murmurhash quickly tails off into file listings and directories and the first several pages (at least) of the search for FNV consists of presentations, papers, conference proceedings, and such. Gruntler (talk) 19:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

And here I thought we were using the same Internet! For what it's worth, I get 160 for MurmurHash, and 225 for FNV. As for quality, neither set is much good. For example, even the first page for FNV contains irrelevant links, such as a page about primes that mentions FNV only incidentally.

Noll's claim to fame is his discovery of large primes, not his use of small ones in poorly-distributed hashes. I would not object to FNV being mentioned on his biography page, but it's just not important enough, or reliably sourced, to have such a large, detailed article. For all the links you mention, none of them are used in the article. Since it's really just a restatement of Noll's page, why not just link directly there and cut us out as middlemen? Phil Spectre (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Gruntler, I cut the article down to a size that I would be happy with. Do you really think it ought to be bigger? Phil Spectre (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue with the other sources is that they largely aren't *about* FNV hash, per se. They're of the form "we used the FNV hash to do X in our work on generally unrelated topic Y." To me seeing a bunch of these *does* establish notability but it's not something that can easily be incorporated into the article.

Anyway, I'm ok with something resembling the version you put up. Gruntler (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Although this is my first AfD, I'm fine with it "failing". Arriving at a version of the article that we can all live with is a better result than either deleting it or keeping it in its previous form. I'm wondering if this means we should revive MurmurHash in a shortened form. I'm also wondering how we can end this AfD. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this can show how to end the AfD: Wikipedia:Non-admin closure HumphreyW (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think this qualifies, based on how long it's been listed, the fact that I'm withdrawing it, and the lack of any visible support for deletion. I'm comfortable with performing a non-admin closure, by way of cleaning up my own mess. Phil Spectre (talk) 01:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was speedy close Problem solved. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] George Barne II

George Barne II (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "George Barne II" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Duplicate page of George Barne III. George Barne II was father of III and needs own page. Wiki Historian N OH (talk) 14:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Close AfD – George Barne II has already been redirected to George Barne III.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ttonyb1 (talk • contribs) 2009/09/30 15:34:16

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Glass America

Glass America (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Glass America" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

This article is about a band that does not meet general notability nor specific notability per WP:MUSIC. The band has only one album released on a small label, and there are no sources writing about the band. Searching for sources turns up a lot of hits for a windsheild company instead. References provided in the article are not from reliable sources. Whpq (talk) 15:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• Delete. If the band is lucky, this article is just premature. However, they aren't notable now, so they shouldn't have an article yet. —C.Fred (talk) 16:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

• This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete as per all above. --Bobak (talk) 17:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) Dr. Meh 00:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Royalty Magazine

Royalty Magazine (edit|