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

The result was delete. JForget 00:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Aaron Hardy (Policy Debate)

Aaron Hardy (Policy Debate) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Aaron Hardy (Policy Debate)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete per wp:n. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A college debate coach is not likely to be notable, and coming in 4th in a national competition likewise. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Win, place, show, Delete. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable debator. 68.45.109.136 (talk) 02:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. The film "debate team" does not seem to be listed in IMDB. Nothing else notable. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 13:47, 28 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete Trivial fail of WP:BIO. Ray^Talk 00:52, 29 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. JForget 00:38, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Claude Fischler

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

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

Delete per WP:N. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Thierry Caro (talk) 23:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Seems to pass WP:PROF. I don't know much about citation analysis, but Google Scholar seems to indicate his work is highly cited. Moreover, GNews shows he's widely quoted as an expert in the international press. His position may confer notability as well, but I'm not familiar with French academia. --Chris Johnson (talk) 23:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep No practical way to measure citations to his books with any accuracy, but directeur de recherche for the Centre national de la recherche scientifique is notable.

There is a misconception here. Directeur de recherche is a comparatively humble position at CNRS, the only research one directs is one's own, but nonetheless the subject's achievements make him notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:32, 29 October 2009 (UTC).

• Keep per above. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Gnews gives him as a widely quoted expert, his citation counts are significant. Allowing for misunderstanding due to the language barrier, I'd still err on the side of keeping. Ray^Talk 01:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. Would the nominator of this AfD, who prodded it two minutes after it was created, care to expand on his reasons for the nomination. Most other editors think it is notable. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:58, 29 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Joachim Cronman

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

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

I at first came to this article because the large colorful crest caught my eye. I noticed the article was rather short, so I decided to read it. After reading it, I do not feel any more edified as to just why this Cronman chap needs an article about him. Ok, I see that he had ancestors. I see that he had descendants. I see he was a colonel. I see that he claims a very eye-catching and large family crest of some kind. None of this makes of any significance in western history.

As a side note, I did read the talk page and saw this article was nominated for deletion before. Enough time has passed since the last AFD, which, upon having reading it, looks me to have been influenced by passions aroused over the unilateral administrative speedy deletion of the article rather than the merits of the article itself.

In closing I would like to quote wikipedian User:Balloonman's previous statement as to why this article does not meet our standards: "Being a colonel does not notability make. And fighting in battles does not make one notable. Heck, all three combined do not do so. Not every colonel who fought and died from the civil war, WWI, WWII, vietnam, Korea, Gulf Coast, Desert Storm, Afganastan, Russian civil war, war of 1812, War of the Roses, 100 years War, etc are notable. Based upon the sources provided, he could have been some minor nobel or wealthy merchant or related to somebody important given an assignment, title and killed in the opening minutes of his first conflict. Remember being a colonel back then didn't necessarily mean career military or that you earned the position."Torkmann (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of references. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete genealogical entry. Buckshot06(prof) 00:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep- The fact that this person is hundreds of years dead and we even know who the hell he is is an indicator of enough notability in my mind that an article is warranted. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can date my genealogy back to the 17th centry as well, and I know "who the hell" all those people are. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Keep meets Wikipedia standard for notability and verifiability. When Wikipedia says no genealogy, it means I am not to write about your grandma. It doesn't exclude writing about the parents, siblings and children of people that are notable in the article on the notable person. If that were true we would have to remove 20% of each president's article. I am glad that shiny blue objects attract your attention, but it sure looks like you are following me around Wikipedia and nominating articles by me. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Young_Clark. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. Whoa! Please chillax...keep it civil. Shiny blue objects? C'mon... Torkmann (talk) 04:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I am always civil. Please notify me when you nominate an article I start. Out of more than 3 million articles, you just nominated two of mine. It gives the appearance you are following me. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, me and User:Drawn Some, and whoever else you think is "stalking" you this week...Torkmann (talk) 05:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Uhhh, see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Edward_Young_Clark, 2 articles by me nominated out of > 3 million. User:Drawn Some also stated that it wasn't targeted, just came across them, for him it was about 33 of my articles nominated in > 3 million. And of course another red flag is that before you nominated Cronman you contacted User:Drawn Some and wrote: "I am going to list the Joachim Cronman article for deletion soon. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on it." Your edits before that were on South Park, but you said "[You] came to this article because the large colorful crest caught [your] eye." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I don't see the Clark article as being particularly relevant. It uses conventional book and news sources; its main problems are a paucity of material and the related question of how notable what he did was. I think with more explanation it would be fine. Mangoe (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• keep As I said before, being commander of a significant military installation is notable, and it seems the fort at Daugavgrīva was very significant [1] . However, I very emphatically disagree that merely having records survive a few hundred years makes for notability. that every member of minor nobility is notable: RAN, whom I often agree with, is in this instance confused between including mention of people in articles and writing articles about them. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep How many times does one need to vote on this matter? No significant changes have occurred since the last afd, so there is no good reason to vote again. The article shouldn't have been listed this time, as there is no consensus going to be reached this time. Van der Hoorn (talk • contribs) 07:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Cronman has no significant coverage in any of the cited references. Those that aren't run-of-the-mill directories (Anrep, Lewenhaupt, Låstbom) mention Cronman once, in rare cases twice, either in passing or in translation of travelogues and diaries, ei primary sources. References like Grosjean & Murdoch and Duncan only tell us who he married and use the already mentioned Swedish references as sources. There is nothing that sets Cronman apart from tens of thousands of other officers and members of the nobility in early modern Swedish history. He didn't participate in any battles and he didn't distinguish himself in any way that is traceable. I don't know exactly where the idea that any fortification commander who ever served (though only before the industrialized era) comes from, but it seems like a perfectly obvious straw man argument to me. In this case it is also quite entirely irrelevant since there are absolutely no details about Cronman's activities at Neumünde nor that it was more important than any of his other commands. The one source that should give a good account of Cronman's career as a fortification commander, Svenska fortifikationens historia 6:2, biografiska anteckningar ("History of Swedish fortifications 6:2, biographical notes", see discussion here), doesn't even have a separate entry for him. This article is in my opinion a perfect example of why the mere mention of someone in various references, even if there are several of them, shouldn't be confused with notability. Peter ^Isotalo 08:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. He was one of thirty-odd top-level officers in the army of Charles XI (hardly "tens of thousands of other officers"), and Anrep, in which a detailed entry is devoted to Cronman, is rather more than a "run-of-the-mill directory". The question of finding more details is irrelevant; we have enough details for a serviceable stub already. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Don't misquote me. My statement was about "officers and members of the nobility in early modern Swedish history". Narrowing the context down to a specific reign is just a way of inflating the uniqueness of any given individual. The "detailed entry" in Anrep is no more significant or verbose than that of the thousands of other Swedish nobles that are listed along with minimal biographical information, ie sorted primary source material without secondary treatment. Whether Anrep is a particularly notable directory or not is not for me to comment on, nor do I understand why you would. In Swedish it would normally be referred to as a matrikel, a geneaological directory. The article on him (created by Richard) is even referenced with a work on the history of Swedish genealogy. And as for "one of the thirty-odd top-level offices", the entry for Cronman in Lewenhaupt's Karl XII:s officerare, reasonably the most accurate measurement of his importance, is actually shorter than most entries (also in the thousands). As far as I recall, Cronman's entry was even no longer or even shorter than that of Anders Örbom, whose article was deleted for pretty much the same reasons stated here.
  • To those reading this thread, I'd like to point out that Paul has been claiming that notability is just around the corner since the beginning of the second AfD. The problem is that the half dozen additional references that were were actually found later turned out to be just as trivial in their coverage of Cronman as the ones that were already cited. They did not result in any noticeable expansion of the article and certainly no greater clarity about Cronman's supposed notability. And as far as I've understood, in this discussion Paul has made a habit to comment on the relevance of references he has never read or even laid his eyes on. Peter ^Isotalo 11:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Peter, if you will make this personal, perhaps I should indicate to others here that you take a special interest in having this particular article deleted to make a point about what degree of coverage and what types of sources you consider a minimum requirement for notability (but have yet to establish consensus for here). Anybody who reads the second AfD and the article talkpage will find you saying as much. They will not find me saying "notability is imminent"; the closest I can find is an early conditional statement that if the claims in an earlier version of the article were true then checking standard sources should be enough to verify them (something you rather bizarrely characterized as "asking for negative evidence", even while setting about doing it in an exemplary fashion). Those reading through the records of the earlier AfD and the talkpage will also see that you have repeatedly claimed to consult printed sources and found that they say "nothing of interest" without giving those of us who do not have access to them any indication of what they actually do say (so even when you claimed to check that Cronman is indeed mentioned in published works about Tartu university, you failed to add to the article, or even to the talkpage, any information as to when or what he studied, or indeed whether he is listed as a student, a benefactor, or in some other capacity, but you did think it worth your time to say that you didn't consider the coverage substantial - in other words, you are interpreting rather than reporting the sources, setting yourself up as a filter for what other wikipedians should be allowed to know). You've done some excellent work weeding out unverified assertions, but you really shouldn't be trying to make this one article a "test case" for your personal philosophy of wikipedia. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:26, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  This wouldn't be first time that you've tried to accuse me of withholding info,[2] and like last time, I think it's pretty uncalled for.[3] Why you choose to bring this up now, eventhough you had plenty of time to request this supposedly invaluable info, is a mystery to me. I openly declared that I forgot to take down the details, but after I made my last post on the article talkpage, I offered to prive Richard with all the references.[4] All the references I managed to find have been scanned and sent to him.

  I've already declared that I believe it not to be Wikipedia's business to include entries on historical individual just because they belonged to randomly selected groups. With that in mind, I naturally don't see why anyone should complain that I'm not adding information which I believe has no bearing on notability. You obviously have your own agenda in this, and you're perfectly welcome to consider your own POV superior, but you're definitely not in a position of accusing me or others of politicking merely for disagreeing with your methods. What I've criticizing you for has not been bad faith, but the way I feel that you exaggerate the importance of sources and injection of fairly dubious claims. In my view, the rough guesswork, speculation and and fairly selective quoting of policy that you have provided has inflated the relevance of the references beyond anything that can be comfortably accommodated in WP:N and WP:RS. While you may not agree that you've actually said "notability is around the corner", you have in my experience been very eager to imply that every single scrap of biographical info that has popped up in searches has to be looked up, translated, read, re-read and scrutinized by yourself before we can even think of Joachim von Cronman as an unsuitable article subject for Wikipedia. Peter ^Isotalo 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't really follow - you seem to be reading a lot more into anything (or everything) that I've said than I ever put there myself. Nor is this the place for lengthy discussions of your interpretations of my words. If there's anything else you want to get off your chest, you're very welcome to post on my talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Just keep the bad faith accusations to yourself, k? Peter ^Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry - did I introduce personalities into this discussion? --Paularblaster 06:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you did. Criticism of your methods of argumentation do not amount to personal attacks. Waving WP:POINT about and making clumsy implications of withholding information, however, is an open accusation of malicious intent, and is pretty personal. Peter ^Isotalo 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Irrational keep. Honestly I have no explanation for this vote apart from affection to shiny blue objects (thank you RAN for this splendid bit of wit). But I suspect that, wikipedia has more urgent things to do than fighting dead Swedes again and again. The 2nd AFD ran only a month before. NVO (talk) 13:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Well, I suppose we could keep this as a testimony to the role availability of genealogical data has in making these people look notable, but since the article all but confesses he never did anything of note, I'll say Delete. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I can understand (although I don't share) the animus against genealogy, but it isn't genealogical information that put Cronman in command of one of the 15 regular infantry regiments in Charles XI's army, stationed that regiment as the garrison regiment at Narva (just when the fortifications were about to be massively extended), or, early in the Great Northern War, gave him command of the fortification that stands between Riga and the sea. None of that is "obviously" notable, but if none of us thought it notability enough we wouldn't be having this discussion. --Paularblaster (talk) 16:54, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue that I am having is the lack of narrative. I can see that he was made a colonel at the end of the Scanian War, and therefore served in peace until 1700, when the Great Northern War began. As far as I can tell, the fortress where he served his final post didn't figure in the course of the war until the Russians took it, by which point Cronman had already died. I'm sure others will disagree, but being commandant at places where nothing happened is not the career path to notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the fortress at Neumünde/Dünamünde/Daugagriva was captured by Saxon troops in 1700 and recaptured by the Swedes in 1701 in the crossing of the Düna. The fortress saw action from very early on in the war, but there is no indication that Cronman served at that time. Lewenhaupt, which is a directory of officers who served under Charles XII, has no information about Cronman's participating in any battle at any point in his career. Johan Cronman, Joachim Cronman's son, on the other, is listed in the same source as participating in multiple battles both under Charles XI and Charles XII, so it's highly doubtful that it has simply been overlooked. We can always speculate that Cronman remained in Neumünde until his death, but there's nothing to prove that and none of the references appear to suggest it. Peter ^Isotalo 20:39, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment from previous closing admin I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination) as no consensus less than a month ago, noting that "[a]fter a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement"; I do not see a significantly different outcome on the cards for this discussion, and question its utility.  Skomorokh, barbarian  16:42, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete trivial mentions don't make this dude notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete for lack of significant coverage in independent sources. For "keep" voters who may not have read WP:GNG, it may be time to do so, and to ponder the meaning of those words. Passing mentions in genealogical directories are not a substitute for the depth of coverage we demand. I'd also suggest a close look at deleting Fritz Cronman. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Your helpful link takes us to the words, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". A dedicated entry on an individual is more than a trivial (or passing) mention. --Paularblaster (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  Just to clarify what is at stake here: Wikipedia is, first and foremost, "an encyclopedia that incorporates elements of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Content should be verifiable with citations to reliable sources." What we have here is an individual who has dedicated entries in at least two reputable third-order works of reference, namely Anrep, a specialized work on the Swedish aristocracy, and Lewenhaupt, a specialized work on the Swedish military. The entries are short - what we would call stubs. He isn't notable enough to have his own entry in the Swedish dictionary of national biography (which would put notability beyond question), but nor are we talking about mere listing in army rolls, parish registers, and matriculation registers. Anrep and Lewenhaupt used such primary sources to create their own published works of reference. It's not our job to interpret the sources, but simply to ascertain that two different reliable, tertiary sources that are paper think him worthy of stub-like inclusion. These are not "general" works of reference, but there is no requirement that they should be - as indicated by the terms "general and specialized". There are, as you can see from the discussion above, those who would say that these specialist works of reference should be regarded as "directories", but that is to give WP:DIRECTORY a broader remit than I, and I suspect many others, would be comfortable with. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

The rule for directory is to exclude people from Wikipedia if they only appear in a phone book or similar directory. The phone book is reliable but provides three facts: name, address, telephone number. We don't exclude people that are notable just because the only biographical information comes from a source that is called a directory. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, Anrep and Lewenhaupt merely compiled primary source information. It's a collection of minimal biographical info without any second hand treatment. They really haven't made any interpretations of the data, which is why I believe they should be considered a directory. There's really not any difference between taking the information from them and taking directly from the primary sources they've used. At least not if we see it through the perspective of our own policies. Peter ^Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  There's a world of difference between raw primary sources, archival finding lists, and the sort of compilation of information under biographical headings that Lewenhaupt and Anrep provide. It's not because these publications are, in some sense of the word, "directories", that WP:DIRECTORY appplies, any more than we should apply WP:DICTIONARY to the Dictionary of National Biography (a more egregious error, but of the same type). --Paularblaster 07:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  As you've said yourself, we are to avoid interpretations at all cost; we're only supposed to report the interpetation of others. In this case, however, we have nothing but raw facts pulled straight out of archives and official records. The only secondary treatment that these facts have received are that they've been transferred to a different, more easily accessible, printed medium, but without commentary, explanations of cause and effect or any semblance of historical analysis or theorizing. Peter ^Isotalo 11:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  I don't think I said we're only supposed to report the interpretation of others. It is quite important that we also report the facts provided by others, regardless of whether or not the people providing the facts discuss or interpret them. --Paularblaster (talk) 12:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, article hasn't changed significantly since the last round, and neither has my opinion. He doesn't inherit notability from the castle, and he doesn't inherit notability from his family. I accept both as indications of notability, but since after an apparently thourough search by Peter and Richard there still is no significant coverage in multiple third-pary sources on him, those indications aren't enough – in my opinion, in the apparent consensus opinion at WP:MILMOS#NOTE, and in the opinion of WP:N. Personally, in absence of a strong argument that could sway the previous consensuslessness, I would have waited a while longer with any re-nomination. Amalthea 13:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per my reasoning in the previous AfD. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 14:59, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep for the same reasons as the last AFD, which was less than a month ago! He was mentioned in many books, and is famous for being the commander of a famed fortress during a notable battle in a notable war. Notice how the fortress is a blue link, as is the battle, and the war itself? By clicking on these and reading up on the information, you can understand why this person is notable. Newspapers at the time would've given him and his actions plenty of coverage. Dream Focus 15:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • What "newspapers" (note the plural) do you know to have been active in Sweden in the 1680s, other than perhaps Ordinari Post Tijdender? And you do realize that speculating about the hypothetical existence of 17th-century press reports is no substitute for the actual sources demanded by WP:BURDEN, right? - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
    • There's the German-language press in Riga, for one thing. The article talkpage already has a link to digitized Swedish newspapers - it just needs somebody with a Royal Library login to check. --Paularblaster 19:03, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • None of the references indicate that Cronman ever participated in any battle or war whatsoever. The article doesn't say so either. I'm suspecting that Dream Focus has simply failed to read the article or any of the relevant discussion since the beginning of the last AfD. Peter ^Isotalo 19:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Your suggestion that we use 17th-century newspapers from Riga crashes into another policy, one you should ponder: WP:PSTS. There's a reason why Augustine of Canterbury doesn't cite the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, or why Battle of Ticonderoga (1759) doesn't cite the Boston Gazette. It's because for events of a certain age, any source from that era is essentially a primary source. Of course, there's some elasticity to this notion, but ca. 1685 would seem to fit the bill. Moreover, it's rather telling that no modern scholar has found fit to write in any meaningful depth about Cronman, whereas for Swedes of roughly the same period (say Queen Christina or Axel Oxenstierna), in-depth coverage by modern scholars is readily available. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
        • You asked a question, I answered it. Then you go off at a tangent about other stuff. But in light of your new remarks, I am curious about when WP:NTEMP stopped being the guideline. (Editing to add: and of course, as you know, we already have actual sources in the form of two different biographical compendia compiled 150-200 years after Cronman's death; the issue of press coverage is a presumption about what additional sources are likely to be available to flesh out an article on somebody of this standing.) --Paularblaster 07:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep the article provides adequate reliable and verifiable sources to establish notability, but would benefit greatly from inclusion of more material about Mr. Cronman himself and his exploits. Alansohn (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Its adequate enough for notability, as I chimed in on the last AfD. But more importantly, as Skomorokh, the closing admin of the last AfD, which closed less than a month, wrote: "I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joachim Cronman (2nd nomination) as no consensus less than a month ago, noting that "[a]fter a mature discussion, there is broad and thoughtful disagreement"; I do not see a significantly different outcome on the cards for this discussion, and question its utility." --Milowent (talk) 17:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep The renomination is vexatiously disruptive per WP:DEL. In any case, our deletion policy requires more than a quick skim before starting a deletion debate. The nominator should please engage with articles at their talk page before coming here. As for the substantive issue, the article has reasonable promise and no satisfactory reason has been presented to suppress further work. The article should be retained in accordance with our editing policies. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Per Umbralcorax. It is well sourced and if we're still today debating of him, he is definitely notable. --Cyclopia^talk 00:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Just pointing out a few links: [5], p[6], [7]. This has nothing to do with notability, but is funny. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete, complete lack of any sources that discuss or analyse the subject of the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep in agreement with overwhelmig consensus above, i.e. that a commander with wartime experience verified in multiple sources is notable enough for a paperless encyclopedia and obvious relevant to geneologists and military historians who use Wikipedia as a reference guide. We clearly gain nothing worthwhile by deletion here, but by contrast provide information to those interested in it, which it is apparent from so many editors wanting it kept across three discussions, clearly such an interest exists. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 06:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • It's been pointed out several times, in article talk, in this AfD and the one before it, that Cronman has no documented wartime experience of any kind. All the available references indicated that he never served in any war whatsoever. Are you deliberately ignoring this obvious descrepancy or is factual accuracy simply not of any interest to you? Peter ^Isotalo 19:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I see no compelling need for a paperless encyclopedia that anyone can edit to be rid of an article backed up by sources that is of interest to readers and editors. Why such an article would bother people is beyond me. Happy Halloween! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
    • First of all, who said anything about having to prove a compelling need to delete an article. If it falls short of our (constantly evolving) Wikipedia standards, then it gets deleted. Plenty of porn stars are of (great) interest to readers and are written about in countless sources, for instance, but that alone is not enough to survive a deletion. Unless sufficiently accomplished or significant in the field, the porn biography will be deleted. Joachim Cronman is a porn star of the seventeenth century. Interesting, but ultimately unaccomplished and insignificant. Torkmann (talk) 17:56, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
• Delete The sources merely assert that he existed. Beyond from the mind-numbing trivia summoned to make this article look important, there's nothing worth a mention. Another cog in what seems like a project to have articles on everybody. Dahn (talk) 06:46, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete in the absence of any sources that discuss the subject at all. Basically, the logic behind the sourcing on this would allow mention in a phone book to establish encyclopedic notability as well.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:43, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per DGG. Given the sources and what his role was, clearly notable. Hobit (talk) 05:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • But what role is actually being assigned to him? None of the references have anything to say about what he actually accomplished. And there's certainly no references that have anything to say on the importance of the Neumünde fortification. Peter ^Isotalo 08:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

If he is still appearing in Finnish history textbooks, he is notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem is, nobody has shown that he is appearing in Finnish history textbooks. Secondly, even if the subject were mentioned in Finnish history textbooks, one would have to establish the reliability of the textbook and the general educational system of Finland. I for one would not put too much stock in the schooling of a nation whose main interests seem to be amorous encounters with reindeer and sitting around in a sauna eight hours a day. Torkmann (talk) 18:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires no such task for notability, and doesn't want editors engaging in original research to determine whether, a textbook with edition 1 published in 1947 and edition 2 published in 1988 and edition 3 in 1990, and held in the library of the University of California, is notable. If the University of California and Google Books say they are notable by their standards they are notable for Wikipedia. This is just more of Torkmann's disruptive nonsense. See the other article I wrote that he nominated along with this one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Young Clark and a reminder of his communication with my other wikistalker User:Drawn Some. Torkmann wrote: "I am going to list the Joachim Cronman article for deletion soon. I just thought I'd give you a heads up on it." As a reminder User:Drawn Some nominated over 20 of my articles over a period of three days. See for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynthia Roche and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Clay Ide --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Defining Savon historia as a textbook is your own, homebrewed definition, Richard. No matter what importance you want to assign to it, trying to claim that its supposed notability automatically passes on to anyone merely mentioned in it is completely specious.

And, Torkmann, keep your embarrasing ethnic stereotypes to yourself

Peter ^Isotalo 06:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I said "a textbook with edition 1 published in 1947 and edition 2 published in 1988 and edition 3 in 1990, and held in the library of the University of California, is notable." (emphasis added) I said the book was notable not anyone in it. This was to counter Torkmann's argument that "one would have to establish the reliability of the textbook". Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:00, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Summation While only a dozen or so facts make up this mini biography, he was important enough in history as the Commandant of Neumünde to have the facts of his life appear in Finnish history books, German books, Swedish biographical compendia, and in an English book as an explanatory note for being the person most likely mentioned in extant letters from the period. Why would we delete this and make the next serious researcher of the period, go though all the work, once again, to compile information on the man? Arguments for deletion have been that the sources are primary or were directories, that is nonsense. Whatever documents Anrep and others used to compile their mini biographies were the primary documents. We use the The Official Congressional Directory as the sole source for early congressmen even though the source is called a directory, and may contain only a half dozen facts on the person. The rule against directories was to say that appearing in say, a telephone book did not make you notable. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:17, 2 November 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 one has supported deletion here JForget 00:37, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Reverse innovation

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

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

Neologism. No sign of this being used by anyone except the two people who came up with it and one of their employers.No independent sources use this term, unless you count interviews with its two coiners. Hairhorn (talk) 22:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. Not a neologism. Several uses at "Reverse+innovation" this Google Scholar search. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• DId you actually look at that search? While there are many results for the term "reverse innovation", it's not used in a consistent way, and an admittedly quick look through the search results doesn't come up with anything resembling the meaning that's given in the entry. Hairhorn (talk) 22:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Well sourced, well referenced, well written, notable by the sheer volume of people touched by the concept in daily life--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• ?? In fact almost none of the sources are indepedent, third party sources. And while people may be "touched" by technology, I see no evidence at all that anyone other than a couple people is using this term to talk about it. Hairhorn (talk) 15:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I find it rather funny that a management idea like "reverse innovation" has an easier time being published in Harvard Business Review than it does in Wikipedia! Christiansarkar (talk) 17:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• BTW, if HBR isn't an independent third-party source, nothing is! :-) Christiansarkar (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. The entry credits three people with coining this phrase; they are the same three people who wrote the Harvard Business Review piece. So it's not independent in any real sense. It's perfectly good as a reference of where it was coined, but it provides no evidence at all that anyone else is using it, and that is the main issue in this AfD: whether this is a notable neologism or not.

The other important distinction that's not being grasped is that, while HBR is a publisher of original research, Wikipedia is not. So getting a paper published in HBR doesn't justify a similar entry in Wikipedia; an journal and an encyclopedia are two different things. Hairhorn (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the clarification. I understand now that others must use this phrase as well. If I could link to 20-30 letters on reverse innovation sent in to the Harvard Business Review, would that help advance the cause? The idea of reverse innovation is new, and as such has not been used widely in other academic publications - yet! Thanks again for your clarification. Christiansarkar (talk) 22:02, 29 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. JForget 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SAO Clan

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

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

Non-notable gaming clan. Deleted through prod, but re-instated. Hairhorn (talk) 22:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

*Axe it - Can't find significant coverage, let alone reliable coverage. --Teancum (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - updated my vote based on Marasmusine's findings on the article author. --Teancum (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Speedy Delete please! See comment per Marasmusine below. This article got a PROD soon after creation and was deleted without incident. For a good laugh, please read this[8] request for an undelete, which was granted. Nothing has happened since. Need a Wikipedia shortcut for these things, since this reeks of WP:GARAGE, but for gaming. I'm not really going to be able to go with the one source listed as RS or establishing notability. Since this was already deleted uncontested via PROD and hasn't been improved after undelete despite the creater saying they would, this isn't a terribly difficult call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Datheisen (talk • contribs) 04:08, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - an A7 or G11 speedy is viable here: note that the article's creator is the "owner and operator" of SOA [9]. Marasmusine (talk) 10:31, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh my. I never cease to be impressed at how well you do your homework on every article regardless of how direct it might appear and can obviously search better than I can :) ...Changing to speedy delete and... changed above. Thanks for finding that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:37, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete I can't believe the amount of obvious stuff that even makes it to AFD - seriously this should all be handled by the CSD process and re-creation for this obvious stuff should be blocked. -Drdisque (talk) 20:18, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It passed speedy the first time, it took a prod to get rid of it. Hairhorn (talk) 22:23, 31 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 A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] She's Got Issues (UK Band)

She's Got Issues (UK Band) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "She's Got Issues (UK Band)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

A band that does lacks references will surely work. The-Giant-Andrew (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what is the problem with this page? Links to our pages have been included. Or EP is currently on iTunes for purchase: http://itunes.apple.com/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/viewAlbum?id=334070127&s=143444 davidoff86 20:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: It is not that you make links to your pages that is the problem (by the way, if you are involved with this band in any way past being a fan, that is a likely conflict of interest, and Wikipedia policies highly discourage editing or creating articles where that may be the case). It is that there is nothing on the page that indicates that the band in question fulfills any of the criteria of WP:BAND. TheLetterM (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete - Speedy delete under A7 as a band that does not indicate its importance or significance. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 21:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as per Jeffrey Mall. PS - the bass player is called David. The article was created by a "daveoff86". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 22:38, 25 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. JForget 00:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Romeo Johnson

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

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

This article is written in such a promotional tone that it will require a complete rewrite in order to meet Wikipedia's standards. It does not include reliable sources that confirm that the subject meets the notability criteria, and I'm not convinced that he does meet that standard. His chief claim to notability seems to be that he has worked with many notable people, but notability is not contagious. FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. -- Eastmain (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak Keep. It needs a lot of hacking back and more references. The COI editor also needs to stop editing. Teapotgeorge^Talk 09:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Per Eastmain and Teapotgeorge. Meets WP:BAND category 1.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:06, 26 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. There is sufficient consensus for a closure. JForget 00:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Midgard (software)

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

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

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}}

Unable to find a single non-trivial reliable secondary source covering the subject on Google, gScholar, gNews, or gBooks and thus does not satisfy notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. The sources on the page are self-published and copied press releases. Odie5533 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Keep Completely opposed to mindless deletionism and tossing away of the substantial contributions of many in what's a fairly comprehensive article. Greenman (talk) 21:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:EFFORT --Odie5533 (talk) 22:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

See the discussion below, the article has now been updated with a significant number of sources including market analyst reports and stories on mainstream web services like IBM DeveloperWorks, ZDnet and DevShed Bergie (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2009 (EET)

• Keep: I am mindbogged about this discussion. Google gives good information on the subject and what's wrong with for example: http://bergie.iki.fi/blog/on_vikings_and_free_software/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.74.183 (talk) 09:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS – it's a self-published blog, only useful for citing the opinion of the blogger and only then if the blogger is notable himself. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: We're talking about a significant free software project. Sources in the Wikipedia article may be improved by using external organizations like CMS Watch (market analyst organization relevant to this field), but the info itself is correct already now. Bergie (talk) 12:06, 26 October 2009 (EET)

Per my nomination, the problem with the article is that it has not received significant coverage in secondary reliable sources. If you could please address this issue, perhaps by providing reliable sources, it would be most helpful in determining that the information in the article is correct, per WP:V. --Odie5533 (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a project by the Open Source community where what you consider secondary might be independent contributors which in turn you wouldn't consider secondary because of contributing. Also, the information is correct and has been verified by members of the community. Discussing completely removing this article on the basis of not considering the information valid just because of missing coverage outside of the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.152.74.183 (talk) 11:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added more references to third parties, including CMS Watch and articles from "competing" open source projects like Plone. Will that satisfy the requirement? Obviously digging up references from the ten years of history of the project is cumbersome but more can be done if required. Old paper publications are a bit hard to find, though. Bergie (talk) 13:09, 26 October 2009 (EET)

You appear to have made it worse. Please read the entire guideline at WP:RS. Self-published blogs are not reliable sources and should not appear at all on encyclopedic articles. The exception to this is for quoting direct opinions of notable people. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

You seem to look very narrow-mindedly at the term of blog. More than half of those references are established online publications run by media companies or market analysts. From my point-of-view that should be as good (or better, as we're talking about page about software related to the web) as a print publication Bergie (talk) 18:44, 26 October 2009 (EET)

I don't mean to include all the new sources as blatantly unreliable, just most of them (blatantly). But you seem to have interspersed a great deal of blog posts without actual quotes or summaries of opinion. As per WP:RS, blogs are next to useless for encyclopedic articles. As I am expecting the article will be deleted, I won't bother, but technically all those blog refs should just be removed per WP:RS. Also, the ones which could possibly be included, e.g. ZDNet, DevShed, CMSWatch, etc, need to be shown to be reliable. I have not seen such an attempt made. If you would like to make it easy on us (though not required), please add the most representative sources here. Others I fear someone will need to go through each trivial source to determine the reliability of the source and extent of coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:05, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course the blog links can be removed if that is the source of your ire. However, that is only 12 out of 43 references used. Reliability of the other sources should be quite obvious. CMS Watch is the leading market analyst of the area, ZDnet is a major news outlet, etc. So, again, I doubt that the article will be deleted when the facts are considered. But as said, I felt the blog entries added valuable context to the points of the article where they were used, which was the reason I included them. Bergie (talk) 20:33, 26 October 2009 (EET)

To continue on this theme, the notability criteria for software says: published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, user guides, television documentaries, and full-length magazine reviews. I'd count sources like DevShed, ZDnet articles, CMS Watch analysis and IBM DeveloperWorks to be strongly in this category. The personal blog references there are also useful for understanding the context of some information in the page, even though they're not relevant to the question of notability. Bergie (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2009 (EET)

Update: the references section should look better now. Bergie (talk) 15:23, 26 October 2009 (EET)

Going through the sources:

• midgard-project.org – primary source does not establish notability
• wikimatrix.org – not reliable as it appears to be user-contributed, does not establish notability
• ranchero.com – Brent Simmons’s linkblog is not a reliable source for an encyclopedic information (used to verify the existence of blog plugins), nor does it establish notability
• bergie.iki.fi – Henri Bergius's blog is not a reliable source for encyclopedic information (used to verify language bindings), nor does it establish notability.
• mdk.org.pl – Michael Kostrzewa's personal self-published programming blog where he announces the release of some ObjectiveC bindings he wrote. Does not establish notability and is unreliable.
• thecoccinella.org – sander's self-published blog post refuting an interview. Does not establish notability, and is unreliable.
• jonontech.com – Jon Marks's personal self-published blog used to advertise a high score he gave Midgard on his personal blog. Unreliable and doesn't support notability.
• jukkaz.wordpress.com – Jukka Zitting's personal self-published Wordpress blog where he discusses the history of how Midgard started. Reliable for the history section, but does not support notability.
• nettiapina.fi – Heikki Hyppänen's personal self-published blog used to discuss the history. A quote from an author appears on the blog, but I don't know the quote is real. Does not support notability and possibly unreliable.
• linuxtoday.com – it's a press release, unreliable since it's a primary source, does not support notability. See WP:RS
• zdnet.com – Reliable, but trivial coverage.
• 3rd-evolution.de – non-english source, does not appear reliable.
• lwn.net – press release type email, does not support notability and is a primary source.
• zope-europe.org – trivial mentioning, it doesn't even talk about Midgard just mentions it in a list. Does not support notability.

--Odie5533 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2009 (UTC) More sources:

• coss.fi – trivial mentioning that Qaiku (??) uses Midgard. Does not support notability.
• tkk.fi – trivial mentioning that their web sites use Midgard. Does not support notability and all these websites using Midgard turns into WP:SYNTH.
• tigert.com – Kuosmanen, Tuomas self-pub blog. Not reliable and doesn't support notability.
• arstechnica.com – Reliable, but VERY trivial mention of Midgard.
• twingle.mozdev.org – Primary source does not establish notability. Also likely self-pub, and unreliable.
• radio.weblogs.com – David Fletcher's personal self-pub blog. Does not support notability.
• plone.org – Trivial mentioning does not support notability.

I have left cmswatch.com for last because I was unable to assess its reliability. But by leaving it for last, I can say that even if it is reliable it still does not constitute significant coverage. --Odie5533 (talk) 18:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

On the question of notability:

• CMS Watch is the main market analyst of the area of content management. They have covered Midgard extensively and consistently over the last ten-or-so years
• IBM DeveloperWorks is a well-established source of tutorials and articles concerning various software development topics
• OSCOM was the central collaborative organization for open source content management systems between 2002-2009. Midgard has been featured extensively in their events (and materials like two documentary films)
• Web Techniques and DevShed have both been well-known sources related to web development techniques in their time
• Midgard is reviewed in Seth Gottlieb's Open Source and Content Management report which is used as a major source in the articles about Content Management on Wikipedia
• Midgard has been shipped in both Debian and SuSE distributions, though is not at the moment due to various compatibility issues a couple years back
• Since 2000 Midgard has been presented in dozens of conference presentations in events related to open source and content management. Some of these have been academic in nature, and some more development-oriented
• ...and finally, Midgard is a free software project running in thousands of organizations and used by tens of thousands of users in places like Lufthansa, Nokia and HP. Exact numbers are hard to produce publicly because of the open source nature of the project (no centralized control of licensees) and various NDAs Midgard consultancies have with their customers. But this is anyway a fact

If these do not make the case for retaining the page in Wikipedia, then I wonder what can.

The other sources are not relevant to the question of notability, but are useful references to the actual contents of the article. In other words, they make it easier to delve deeper into the subject matter. Bergie (talk) 21:16, 26 October 2009 (EET)

At most you have presented 4 different sources to support notability. Similar frameworks generally have dozens of reliable sources covering them (or more). I don't believe this article meets the WP:N guidelines. --Odie5533 (talk) 00:04, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that all of the sources that were posted are trivial or unreliable. An article doesn't need dozens of reliable sources with significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to note that CMS Watch is built on Midgard (see the About page on their site). I don't think this affects the reliability of the source. But it is worth mentioning since the framework is obscure, and a site that uses the framework writes about the framework way more than anyone else. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd call that a plus point for keeping the article, not a negative Bergie (talk) 12:11, 31 October 2009 (EET)

I don't really have an opinion on it, just pointing it out. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Continuing on notability, here are listed some conferences in the field of publishing and software that have accepted papers and talks about Midgard:

• Global Linux 2000, Seoul Korea had a talk about Midgard and the business models around it
• OSDEM 2001 had some Midgard workshops by Ami Ganguli and Alexander Bokovoy
• Linux Expo Madrid 2001 had a talk introducing Midgard consulting models
• LinuxTag 2001 had a Midgard talk
• International PHP Conference 2001 had a Midgard workshop by Philipp Rotmann and Torben Nehmer
• Wizards of OS 2001 had a Midgard presentation by Ami Ganguli
• Open Source Content Management Conference in 2002 in Zurich, Switzerland had a Midgard presentation
• OSCOM 2 in 2002 in Berkeley, CA had a Midgard presentation by Henri Bergius
• OSCOM 3 in 2003 in Cambridge, MA had a Midgard workshop
• Seybold-Gilbane Content Management Intensive 2003 in Amsterdam, the Netherlands had a Midgard presentation
• GUADEC 2003 in Dublin, Ireland had a Midgard presentation
• SambaXP 2003 had a presentation about using Midgard and Samba together in intranets
• Summer Source 2003 in Vis, Croatia had Midgard tutorials to NGO workers from around Eurasia
• Finnish foreign ministry sponsored a week-long course on Midgard to NGOs in South Africa in 2004
• OSCOM 4 in 2004 in Zurich, Switzerland had a Midgard and MidCOM presentations (the F.U.D documentary film was shot in this conference and same year's ApacheCon, with Midgard featured in it)
• Russian Open Source Forum 2005 in Moscow had a presentation about providing municipality portals with Midgard
• Forum GNOME 2005 in Curitiba, Brazil had a Midgard tutorial
• SOLISC 2005 in Florianopolis, Brazil had a Midgard tutorial
• ServOSS seminar 2007 in Helsinki, Finland had a Midgard presentation
• FrOSCon 2007 in Sankt Augustin, Germany had a Midgard presentation
• Russian Free Software Seminar 2007 in Protva had a talk about Midgard's community roots by Alexander Bokovoy
• FSCONS 2008 in Gothenburg, Sweden had a Midgard presentation and a Midgard workshop
• FrOSCon 2009 in Sankt Augustin, Germany had a Midgard presentation
• Gran Canaria Desktop Summit 2009 in Las Palmas had a Midgard presentation
• OpenMind 2009, the Finnish open source conference
• NLUUG's The Open Web 2009 had a Midgard presentation

If Midgard is notable enough to be a desirable subject for such conferences, it ought to be for Wikipedia as well. The arrangers after all are experts in selecting relevant content for their events from this particular field. Bergie (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2009 (EET)

• Keep: Ten years age and running important corporate sites like maemo.org shows that it is well established CMS software. It is also one of the "first wave" open source CMS solutions and was generally mentioned as one of the primary open source CMS alternatives (refs: [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]) around the millennium so article should be saved for the history reason too. --Zache (talk) 07:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: As a long time member of the Maemo Community I strongly support Midgard and stand behind its relevance in today's open source software world. Several articles from reliable sources have covered the system in its 10 years history. Please keep the wikipedia page and respect the work of those who have created this software for all of us. FerencSzekely (talk) 09:39, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I argue that at least the CMS Watch and IBM DeveloperWorks coverage is non-trivial. Also, CMS Watch is probably the one of the only reliable sources concentrated in this specific area of software. The 10+ years of Midgard history seems to be well reflected in various references, and make it interesting in the history of open CMS:s. At least Brent Simmons and Seth Gottlieb look like well known professionals / conference speakers in their field, so I would raise them above ordinary self-published sources. The maemo connection [15] is also interesting though only a few publications are available so far. But as an enabler of the maemo community, with the importance of maemo hugely increasing at the moment, I think Midgard does get a few extra notability points indeed as well. --TJ (talk) 12:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: per above - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:PERNOM – !voting doesn't really help the discussion. --Odie5533 (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article has been inappropriately canvassed off-wiki. See [16]. ThemFromSpace 23:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know Themfromspace. --Odie5533 (talk) 03:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't find discussing Wikipedia's deletionist policies outside of Wikipedia in any way inappropriate. Many Wikipedia contributors do not constantly follow what is happening to pages they read or have contributed about. Bergie (talk) 12:09, 31 October 2009 (EET)

Please see the WP:CANVASS guideline for when notifying "contributors that do not constantly follow what is happening to pages they read or have contributed about" is appropriate: "Campaigning is an attempt to sway the person reading the message, conveyed through the use of tone, wording, or intent. While this may be appropriate as part of a specific individual discussion, it is inappropriate to canvass with such messages." and "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion (which may be determined, among other ways, from a userpage notice, such as a userbox, or from user categorization), and thus encouraging them to participate in the discussion." --Odie5533 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: If being included in Debian repositories makes software noteworthy, then software that has been the subject of numerous conference presentations should definitely be noteworthy. Also CMS Watch is definitely a reliable resource when it comes to this field of software. --Eero af Heurlin 17:03, 31 October 2009 (EET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.143.193 (talk)

Please review Wikipedia's policy on what WP:NOTABILITY. Inclusion in the Debian repositories generally does not determine notability for software on Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Link does not inform on policies or refer to software notability, with Google found an old article Wikipedia:Notability_(software) (which states that inclusion in major distribution is considered notability, OTOH it does note that Debian has plenty of packages) and IMO very good RFC Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software. While on the subject of Debian I'd like to point out that Midgard was included in Debian repos but due to version issues was removed, however notability is not temporary and thus having been once included in Debian should count as notability (how much is a different discussion, Debian has tons of packages). AFAIReall midgard was included in SUSE as well even before it started using OBS to build packages, but I can't find a reference right now. Anyways my point was that since being included in major distribution is considered to be at least some level of notability and to me being presented in a conference is much more notable than being one of the thousands of packages in a distro it should follow that the conference coverage makes Midgard notable. --Eero af Heurlin 18:20, 31 October 2009 (EET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.143.193 (talk)

The general notability guidelines apply to all articles, including software, so anything you read on WP:N directly applies to this framework. I don't think inclusion in Debian repos has any bearing whatsoever on the notability of the framework for inclusion in Wikipedia. Also, the conferences listed are not cited so we have no way of knowing what went on at each one. And even if there were citations for them, I do not believe conferences are generally reliable secondary sources, as the information presented at the conference would need to be both recorded somehow and either peer reviewed or at least looked at by an editorial staff to determine the factual accuracy of the information being presented. This is all rather academic as the material at the conferences isn't being presented here for inclusion in the article, nor has it been included in the article. --Odie5533 (talk) 16:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I had (correct but outdated) recollection that being included in major distro would could as notability for software and did not check current guidelines (my mistake). Anyways as Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:Notability_of_free_open_source_software states the current guidelines have a bias against FOSS. --84.20.143.193 (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2009 (UTC) (Eero af Heurlin)

• Comment It is downplayed in the article at the moment (to avoid sounding like an advertisement, I would think) but just a note to those unfamiliar with the field: The way Midgard uses a C library for ORM/Database abstraction and PHP extension to access that library is rather unique for CMS software (in fact I don't know of any else), and I'm fairly sure Midgard was the first CMS to take this approach. Also the way the templating engine is in an apache module (as opposed to pure PHP/Python/whatever CMS') is unique. Ditto for the DBUS signalling. --Eero af Heurlin 20:25, 31 October 2009 (EET) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.20.143.193 (talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A fair contingent of editors seem to believe that a list is a viable option here, and as such deletion does not seem the optimal outcome: lists and categories can co-exist, and particularly if improved this one may provide additional useful information. I would strongly advise that some thought is put into how this list can be made into more than a duplicate of a category - most of the keep arguments are rather theoretical in nature, and if this is to be kept in the long term the theoretical arguments need to be turned into actual improvements. Ultimately, this debate has been dragging on for a long, long time and it has to end somewhere: there is no sign of a consensus forming either way. ~ mazca ^talk 01:37, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of education articles by country

List of education articles by country (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of education articles by country" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

• Delete. This article is redundant to the related category. It adds nothing extra. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 22:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as a list trying to imitate the function of a category. The self-reference makes the topic impossible to discuss from an encyclopedic perspective. ThemFromSpace 04:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This is one of those rare cases where the category takes care of it all, and a list is unnecessary. In most cases, a list can do more than a category when it comes to providing discriminating information, but there's nothing that can usefully be added to describe the entries on this list. Essentially, this comes down to someone saying, we have an article called "Education in Afghanistan", and "Education in Albania", and "Education in Algeria", etc. etc.; and nobody is going to ask, "What's that article about?" Mandsford (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This is a fairly well established type of list--and does give additional information, for example indicating the limitation at Liechtenstein, listing names where the actual article is at a different title and would not be easily spotted in a category, indicating a few redlinks (and there are a considerable number of other possible ones), and grouping some subdivisions, like Korea. None of these can be served by a category--especially the redlinks. DGG ( talk ) 23:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I only spot one real redlink, Education in Kosovo. The other two redlinks are cases of an incorrect title, since there are articles called Education in the Dominican Republic and Education in Papua New Guinea. The fact that there aren't very many redlinks and the fact that the articles have uniform titles is testimony that this list might have served a purpose at one time, but has outlived its usefulness. Mandsford (talk) 02:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

None of the additional information in the article is a rational for keeping it. The Education in Liechtenstein is incorrectly linked piped to one secondary school of a possible four. The redlinks are not of any use to a reader but are of use to editors. The Wikipedia:WikiProject Education can keep a track of articles that need creating. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Per WP:CLS, categories do not supersede lists and so there is no case to answer. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

CLS never says categories do not supercede lists. Actually, they have different functions here and may complement each other, but never have to. Lists are encyclopedia articles, which have to abide by our policies and guidelines while categories are just collections of information that we use to organize material, the bar for the ways categories tie information together is much lower than it is for lists, as categories don't have to abide by policies like WP:N or WP:IINFO. ThemFromSpace 00:58, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  05:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak keep, this does add a certain amount of value over the category, especially the Poland section. I am sure there will be more scope for useful formatting like this in the future. Nerfari (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The two articles should be linked for the Education in Poland article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note There is a Index of education articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. And note that it links to the list in question (now that I have fixed the link). One list is organised alphabetically, the other by country. Perhaps they might be merged as a sortable index... Colonel Warden (talk) 17:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 07:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I actually have to disagree with DGG here, because I think that a category would work just as well, or better, here. Bearian (talk) 17:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• this seems quite speculative and is not a reason to delete. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. Note also that we have lots of such lists/indexes. There seems to be some inconsistency as to whether they are called indexes or lists but this is just an example of Wikipedia's half-built state.Colonel Warden (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This article was deleted. However, after a debate on my talkpage, it was decided that it would be better to wait a bit more so that the consensus is clearer. Therefore, I am relisting the nomination. --Tone 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep; WP:CLS seems pretty clear that redundancy with categories is not a reason to delete lists. "Developers of these redundant systems [lists and categories] should not compete against each other in a destructive manner, such as by nominating the work of their competitors to be deleted just because they overlap." —Smeazel (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue isn't that they overlap, but that the list is an article while the category is not. As such, the list has to not only fill up the function of the category, but go beyond it by presenting an analysis of the list as an encyclopedic subject. That is impossible to do with this list, as it is only a list of the articles which we have here on Wikipedia. We already have a place for this here, but as a category and not a list. Lists and categories aren't copy/paste images of each other and in order for a list to complement a category it must show that the grouping of articles is of encyclopedic importance and has been already done by reliable sources. As no such sources have commented upon the grouping of Wikipedia's education articles by country, no suitable material can be presented in the list so this particular list fails WP:LIST. ThemFromSpace 23:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• No, WP:LIST#Navigation makes it quite clear that we can and should have lists of articles just like this to assist editors in browsing and searching in a general topic area. There is no requirement for article content in addition to the list. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That is once the list itself is appropriate. Per WP:LIST lists are articles, and they abide by our content guidelines and policies such as other articles. For example, list articles still need to contain verifiable information about a notable subject. If a list cannot meet our basic article guidelines, the list shouldn't be here, just the same with each other article on Wikipedia. Also closely related to this is the fact that there are many possible list topics which are too broad to develop an article out of, per WP:SALAT. These are many of the topics which are suitable for a category and not a list, much like the topic of this article. ThemFromSpace 23:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Requiring a list to be verifiable doesn't mean the list itself should already have appeared elsewhere—it means that it has to be verifiable that each item included on the list belongs there. This is clear from the context of the statement in WP:LIST, and from the further explanation later on in that page: "Inclusion of material on a list should be based on what reliable sources say, not on what the editor interprets the source to be saying." (Emphasis added.) In this case, there's certainly no question that each item on the list is, in fact, an article about education. WP:LIST concurs with WP:CLS in that "Redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two categories work together". Furthermore, as for WP:SALAT, I don't see how you could say this list is too broad—there are only so many countries, after all, so the number of articles in this list is inherently limited and can never be overly large. —Smeazel (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - it's one thing to have redundancy when the list provides additional information - for instance, the List of Presidents of the United States tells us when the Presidents served, their parties, their vice presidents and their rank, something Category:Presidents of the United States does not. But since Category:Education by country is almost exactly redundant to List of education articles by country, there's no reason to keep the latter. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep A Wikipedia list aids in navigation. That's what this one does, listing blue links to all the various articles that are about the same subject. I find it much easier to read things in a list formation than in the categories. Dream Focus 14:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This list helps very little, if any, toward navigation. The articles can be found easily through the associated category or by doing a search. All the articles have a very appropriate names and follow a pattern so searching is easy. This list is not one that needs reading since all the links are obvious. The question would be, what do the majority of WP readers prefer - a list or a category? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • It would help you little towards navigation perhaps. I'd find it most helpful. Also, list like this show up in searches, while categories do not. When you are looking for something, you can find it in a list article, NOT a category. The only way to find a category is to first come to an article like this, and notice the link to it at the bottom of the page. So yeah, this list aids in navigation, it far more likely to get noticed than a category. And it doesn't matter what you believe the majority of users would like or not like. No way to tell without a Wikipedia wide survey. You can't delete something because you don't like it. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It meets all requirements that a list is suppose to have. Dream Focus 21:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Categories do show up in searches. A search for "List of education articles by country" (which is a very unlikely search term) will give this article and a search using the more likely term of "Education by country" gives the category as the first result. Also, I am not using the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument since I feel that I am putting quite rational reasons forward for deleting the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:08, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. per WP:SALAT: "Lists of lists should also be available as alphabetical categories." See Category:Lists of lists for more. -- Quiddity (talk) 18:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • This page is not a list of lists. It is a very specific list of a specific set of articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Again the line is blurred between the denoted and the denoter. In any case, this is indeed a poor attempt at supplanting the function of categories, and it makes no sense whatsover. Dahn (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment. The AfD has been up for a month now and it should be resolved. Those arguing for deletion are not given any rebuttal but those who want to keep it have been given reasons why it should not be kept. To me this suggests that the arguments for keeping it are weak so therefore the AfD should lean towards deletion. I have just now twigged to the fact that the article is not a List of education articles by country it is a List of "Education in (some country here)" articles-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• Your argument is that the list is redundant to the category. This argument has been rebutted by reference to the guideline WP:CLS. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
  • And the use WP:CLS to justify this page has been rebutted. Also, note that I said the article "adds nothing extra" as well as saying it is redundant to the category. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

• No, WP:CLS states, "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others. For example, since editors differ in style, some favor building lists while others favor building categories ... Many users prefer to browse Wikipedia through its lists, while others prefer to navigate by category; and lists are more obvious to beginners, who may not discover the category system right away. Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists...". This seems to destroy your argument completely. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:43, 1 November 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. JForget 00:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Cydney Bernard

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

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

Alleged domestic partner of Jodie Foster, although the reliable-source documentation of this claim is pretty negligible. No independent notability. Much of the recent flurry of tabloid/gossip coverage appears based on an article in the National Enquirer, which fails WP:RS. Related BLP issues, WP:NOTINHERITED etc. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, I could not find any reliable sources that say she is notable on her own. Everything is based on Jodie Foster and notability is not inherited. There are also WP:BLP problems, since the whole article is based on something that, according to the article, both her and Foster deny is true. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 23:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. The subject has kept a very low profile, and her own activity in the film industry has not been prominent enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete NN per WP:NOTINHERITED. Also, i think it is against the spirit of out WP:BLP and WP:Undue policies to have a WP:coatrack BLP that only exists to imply a denied personal relationship.YobMod 13:27, 29 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 Speed close. First of all this was created with the required header making the page unlisted on the current AfD page and it appeared as part of a Cisco AfD. Second this page says that it is for the Malia Obama (2009), which was created and deleted 25 OCtober 2009, and the redirect Malia Obama. I am unsure how an AfD can be used to change a redirect to an article. I suggest that Wikipedia:Deletion review or some of the venues that User:Marcusmax suggests be used instead. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 19:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Malia Obama (2009)

Malia Obama (2009) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Malia Obama (2009)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Malia Obama was an article that was made into a redirect in spring, 2008. More than one year later, she has become notable or, even by those favoring deletion, a "marginally notable" person.

She has articles written in very reliable sources about her specifically. She is now a public figure rather than an obscure figure before the election. Name McCain's children and most people have a hard time naming them. Name Obama's children, and the Malia's name snaps into people's minds, even more than her little sister (who doesn't have articles about her).

This is a deletion debate about the redirect, which should be changed to an article. There's already one in the history. SRMach5B (talk) 18:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Change redirect to the article previously written We must also watch the article to prevent vandals if re-created. We don't need to ask permission from the White House, who hasn't protested the Wikipedia article, but actually releases press photos of the family (unlike the Spanish government which informally prohibits release of photos of the Spanish prime minister's children) SRMach5B (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - SRMach5B I believe you posted this in the wrong place I recommend perhaps trying WP:RFC or try WP:BLP/N to start a discussion on the notability of Malia. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:41, 25 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. JForget 00:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Visual T Sharp

Visual T Sharp (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Visual T Sharp" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails notability guidelines, the vast majority of the article reads as a software manual, cleaning this out would leave a unreferenced stub article with no claims of notability. Q ^{T C} 17:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find for this is the source that is already in the article. Joe Chill (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wikipedia is not the missing manual Miami33139 (talk) 20:08, 29 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kangaroo attacks in Australia

Kangaroo attacks in Australia (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Kangaroo attacks in Australia" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Lacks notability to sustain an article, seems to be heavily based on WP:OR/WP:SYN and non-reliable sources. Orderinchaos 17:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Orderinchaos 17:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The references appear to be reputable daily newspapers from Australia, and what appears to be original research probably appeared in the source material. -- Eastmain (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Note WP:SYN - "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." At least two of the main sources are self-published web pages which themselves do not cite their sources. Orderinchaos 19:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The conclusion is explicitly stated in the source: Kangaroo Attacks in Australia Spotlight Growing Turf War James4750 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment hmmm...(scratching head) I guess my main problem is that the existence of the article implies a level of notability to the subject which isn't present in reality. There is some reportage in press (more than I'd thought actually). Need to look into this one some more. At the very least Kangaroo (only at 30kb) should have a section on this before the daughter article was created. i.e. merge is an option. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Notable topic which has been discussed by National Geographic and other sources James4750 (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep No less notable than any of the other "x attacks in Australia" articles; doesn't seem like a case of synthesis to me, as the topic of 'roo attacks in general is covered in sources, not just various examples thereof. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:02, 26 October 2009 (UTC) Delete per nom, I didn't realize these articles were all made by the same author. Orderinchaos is convincing. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. All of the "attacks in Australia" articles were created by the same author over the last couple of weeks, and all of them are problematic in the same ways. 2. Randomly hunting through newspaper archives for incidents that happen to match a predetermined set of facts is indeed WP:SYN. Orderinchaos 07:10, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The articles are in the same format as the American articles on alligators, bears, cougars, sharks and snakes which have been here for years. 2. There are a huge number of publications about animal attacks in Australia James4750 (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Although WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies here as well, the animals you've listed are generally predatory. Kangaroos, koalas and magpies aren't. (Although I will give you drop bears).You've gone a little bit overboard on the range of articles. Show me some similar US articles on squirrels, beavers and groundhogs. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:15, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to KangarooDelete. Kangaroos are so common in Australia that most "attacks" go unreported. Those that do make it to the media are the more unusual ones, generally used as filler material. Many are not even attacks, such as the most recent listed in the article, which is clearly the case of an injured and disoriented roo simply trying to escape from an unfamiliar environment. (Does anyone believe for a minute that a kangaroo deliberately jumped through the window of a home so that it could attack a family?) Only 20 km (12 mi) from the CBD of Australia's 7th largest city, kangaroos can be seen grazing on the lawns of family homes in large numbers. The become disoriented because of civilisation encroaching on their natural grazing land and often run into man-made objects that are out of place in the bush. That's why incidents such as this happen. It's not a deliberate attack a simplied by the article. The second last incident in the article is another example of a non-attack, a hungry kangaroo trying to eat, being forced away from scarce food by people who later killed it. The kangaroo was obviously just trying to defend its right to eat and not die. These incidents are generally taken out of context, as they have in the article. Any mention of real attacks should be in Kangaroo but a separate article that just lists incidents perceived as attacks by an editor isn't warranted. Unless, of course, Cat attacks in Australia, Fly attacks in Australia and Bully ant attacks in Australia are seen as valid articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:33, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the reason, it is still an attack. The last one was notable enough for CNN and the BBC. There isn't enough room in Kangaroo to describe all of them. James4750 (talk) 03:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

What definition of attack are you using? Wikitionary says that an attack is "an attempt to cause damage or injury to, or to somehow detract from the worth or credibility of, a person, position, idea, object, or thing, by physical, verbal, emotional, or other assault." The first example I used was an attempt at escape. The attack only came when the man grabbed the kangaroo, which would have scared the hell out of it. It was he who attacked, not the kangaroo. That it was covered in foreign media perhaps gives it notability for inclusion in Human attacks in Australia, but not this article. The second I mentioned was a defence, not an attack. There is a difference. As for listing them all in Kangaroo, that article is currently only 30.5KB. Merging the entire contents of this article would only increase the size to 37.5KB. There is plenty of room to add real attacks to the article, if there is a need. I don't think there is. --AussieLegend (talk) 04:57, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok from your list: damage.. to.. an object (house).. by physical.. assault (doesn't have to be intentional). Not everything needs to be merged into Kangaroo, there's also Kangaroo emblems and popular culture and Kangaroo meat James4750 (talk) 05:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

"Attempt" implies intent. As for the existence of other articles, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS applies. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it could be Injuries to persons or damages to property caused by kangaroos which may or may not be deliberate, provoked or in self-defence but that would be a little long-winded. James4750 (talk) 07:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:IINFO and WP:NOT#NEWS - this is a collection of trivial news reports. Kangaroos are common, large and not very smart animals with claws which sometimes panic and strike out at people when they feel cornered or are in territory which isn't familiar to them. I don't see any reason why individual attacks need to be covered. I once had a kangaroo in my backyard (which isn't at all uncommon in the small city where I live) which the park rangers told me to leave well alone when I rang to report it. If I'd bothered it and it had kicked me (deliberately or accidentally) it seems that I would have met this article's inclusion criteria... Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Quote from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fatal cougar attacks in North America by decade: While Wikipedia is not a news archive, the large body of news stories over the years about cougar attacks (including a number of stories about cougar attacks in general rather than a particular single attack, show that this topic satisfies WP:N. I might not agree with an article about each attack which makes the newspapers, but collectively they are notable and a documented list is appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by James4750 (talk • contribs) 07:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

That deletion discussion (from two years ago) is about an article that deals with "fatal" attacks. None of the attacks in this article are fatal and some aren't even attacks. That makes them significantly less notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Even though they aren't fatal the stories are still picked up by international media, which makes them notable. James4750 (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom and AussieLegend's points which are all valid. Some of the incidents may be worth summarising into the Interaction with humans section in the kangaroo article. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and other comments above. --GenericBob (talk) 13:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge with Kangaroo as an Australian i can assure you kangaroos attack quite often however the severity is on a large scale, whilst it is worth a mention and maybe a list in the Kangaroo article, maybe a new article such as "Australian Widlife Attacks" would be more appropriate, considering Australia has the top 10 deadliest snakes, not to mention our crocs and koalas (believe me u dont want to get on the wrong side of a koala), just some food for thought. Is worth a mention that drought does play a very large part in Australian animal attacks.ZooPro 12:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Crikey seems we already have an article called Animal attacks in Australia why not just move info into that sections, with all the animal attack info that would be a top quality article.ZooPro 12:40, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

All the info wouldn't fit in one article. James4750 (talk) 20:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

AS per my earlier comments,[17] Animal attacks in Australia is currently 30.1KB, Merging in this article would increase the article size to around 40KB. --AussieLegend (talk) 22:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Someone put them in, but it was just removed [18] because it was too large James4750 (talk) 23:01, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not what the edit summary says or what is indicated by the edits made. --AussieLegend (talk) 01:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

It was still removed, this article can't be merged into it if the info is being removed. James4750 (talk) 02:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

If the consensus of this AfD is to merge then that's what will happen. I suspect though that the edit performed was to eliminate the non-notable entires. There are a lot of them in all of the attack articles. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, a hell of a lot of them have simply been mined from NLA sources in violation of WP:SYN ... only those discussed in the context of historical attacks in secondary sources could reasonably speaking be included. Orderinchaos 14:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

The secondary sources state that there have been animal attacks in Australia. There is no synthesis. James4750 (talk) 21:20, 31 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. JForget 00:30, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Steve Hesketh

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

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

Prod removed. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played at a professional level. Tassedethe (talk) 17:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Nuetral/Comment: What about all the other Perth Glory articles? Should they all be deleted? What prevents them from being deleted as well that may apply to this article?--TParis00ap (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment It seems clear that this person has only played for the youth team and in friendly matches on tour. He has not played professionally for Perth Glory. Professional players for that team will pass WP:ATHLETE. Tassedethe (talk) 18:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment So Glory Youth is a sub-league of Perth Glory then? If so, I can support this AfD--TParis00ap (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG; recreate if & when either of these concerns are met. GiantSnowman 21:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - hasn't made an appearance and therefore fails WP:ATHLETE Spiderone 21:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Youth appearances do not confer notability per WP:ATHLETE. Has not done anything else that I am aware of that would meet broader notability guidelines. Cocytus [»talk«] 22:47, 30 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. JForget 00:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Stafford (band)

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

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

The article has the tag that it may not meet the notability requirements for music since July 2008. After review it does not meet any of the notability requirements set forth on the page listing these requirements and should be deleted. Robkozlowski (talk) 17:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Delete Local band with no awards or record hits.--TParis00ap (talk) 17:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete The sources just don't cut it. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 18:35, 25 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, which generally defaults to a keep, but in this case, we have the added element of the subject wishing the article to be deleted. That has an effect on what action to take. According to the current deletion policy:

Discussions concerning biographical articles of relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete.

The outcome therefore hinges on whether Emmanuel is a "relatively unknown, non-public figure". After reviewing the discussion, I gather that Emmanuel has been the leader of political rallies and run for public office. It is difficult to conciliate those activities, where public attention is sought, with Emmanuel being a "non-public figure". Since Emmanuel's political activity make him a public figure, the "no consensus" outcome here is defaulting to keep.

While I realize the outcome may be controversial, after I feel that it is justified by "strength of arguments", the "keep" side of the discussion have provided a deeper argument, including numerous references covering Emmanuel's political activity. The delete arguments have presented the subject's desire for deletion along with an assertion of non-notability as the only reason for deletion, and the coverage by national-level newspapers has not been adressed by them. Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:41, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan Emmanuel

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

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

My attention was brought to this article by the subject. In reviewing the article and making adjustments wrt his concerns, I realized he didn't appear particularly notable. In doing a Google search, I don't find many RS. The first reliable result that is focused on him is on page 2 of the search and reads "Reverend Tristan Emmanuel is not a household name nor an important player in the evangelical community."[19] G-News hits brings some things up, but I wasn't sure. However, today I received an email via OTRS from the subject expressing his desire for the article to be deleted. Lara 17:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - seems utterly non-notable. Also, as the subject requests deletion, and as it's marginal, it should be deleted. The encyclopedia is not going to be the worse-off for its absence. While I personally dislike this guy's stance on ... just about everything :p - objectively, there's just not the notability here to have it kept - Alison ^❤ 18:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Notability is marginal at absolute best, and per Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Biographies_of_living_people weight should be given to the wishes of the subject. Kevin (talk) 22:12, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - Minor party candidate in by election? not notable. And certainly not notable enough to keep against subject wishes. ++Lar: t/c 02:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Tristan Emmanuel is a significant organizer among social conservatives in Canada. He organized a 2003 rally in support of the American invasion of Iraq, and had several prominent federal and provincial politicians attend as speakers. In the same year, he organized several forums among social conservatives who were opposed to same-sex marriage and to the extension of federal hate crimes legislation to encompass gays and lesbians (one newspaper report from 2003 indicates that he organized at least fifteen such forums in various urban centres). In 2005, he organized several rallies in opposition to same-sex marriage across Canada (and in the process influenced several Conservative Party nomination meetings). More recently, he was the chief organizer for Randy Hillier in the latter's bid for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. By any fair definition, Emmanuel is a public figure and a fair subject for an article. I should add that someone claiming to be Tristan Emmanuel recently attempted to remove certain passages from the article page, using arguments that I found to be less than convincing ([20]). I am not opposed to deleting the biographical pages of truly marginal figures whose future prospects may be hindered by past utterances, but Tristan Emmanuel is not a marginal figure. He received extensive media coverage in 2003 and 2005-06, and the fact that most of the articles in question no longer turn up in Google searches is quite beside the point. I'm certainly not in favour of removing sourced, accurate and relevant information that a notable subject finds inconvenient. In response to Lar: Emmanuel's notability does not derive from his electoral record, but from his organizational work. Since you've mentioned it, however, I should note that the standard practice is to redirect entries for failed political candidates to centralized list pages. If the consensus view is that Emmanuel is non-notable, the proper course of action would be to summarize and redirect the page, not to delete it. In response to the nominator, I can only say that Richard Viguerie isn't a household name either, but no one familiar with his efforts in the public sphere would deny his notability. CJCurrie (talk) 04:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: Per CJCurrie. While he may not be a household name, I have no doubts about the notability of this person, and the article seems well referenced. His notability derives from the political sphere, but not from his electoral record. DigitalC (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Follow-up comment: This article in the Georgia Strait counters the idea that he isn't notable, describing him as one of Canada's "most politically active social conservatives" DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —DigitalC (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per CJCurrie, DigitalC and the Georgia Straight. His various activities as political candidate, organizer and author cumulate to mkae him notable even if the activities individually may not (although I think CJC has addressedt hat effectively.) Ground Zero | t 19:27, 27 October 2009 (UTC).
• Delete per Alison, Kevin, and Lar especially with regards their accurate comment relating to our keeping this minor biography against the subject's wishes. I have also read the strongly put request by CJCurrie to keep - however I say (without attempting to or hopefully actually upsetting that editor) that I have noted in the edit history of the article a continuing argument between CJCurrie and what appears to be the subject in regards to claims about the subject's COI. Whilst I generally can respect CJCurrie's concern about COI, I am left with a strong feeling that there is a degree of ownership by him over this article which does not take into account the subject's reasonable wishes. In a nutshell whilst I respect the defence of an article by editors so interested I think in this case that level of defence has moved beyond a healthy encylopedia driven response.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 21:35, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Question pertaining to the previous post: in light of the recent changes, is the subject of the article still insistent on its deletion? CJCurrie (talk) 22:05, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  I should clarify my reason for asking this question: I've recently made a number of adjustments to the article, taking into account the subject's prior complaints. Given that the subject did not make a request for deletion until a few days ago, and that the conditions under which he made this request no longer exist, I am curious as to whether or not he still believes the page should be removed. CJCurrie (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

  I will email him to ask. Thank you. Lara 00:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  He said he's traveling and will review and respond Friday. Lara 16:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

  Has he responded yet? CJCurrie (talk) 07:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

  Yes. I've just checked. He said he reviewed the changes and still wishes to proceed with the deletion discussion. Lara 15:54, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete We should absolutely honor the subject's request. — Jake Wartenberg 22:49, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete - I see no reason not to honor the wishes of the person who the article is about; especially if they aren't truly that notable. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:05, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep - while not a household name in the US, he seems notable enough. This is the sort of article however that can run into trouble with negative information, as the subjects views are not popular amongst large sections of modern western society. and I would urge all editors who vote keep to watchlist and be vigilant for extraneous crap. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Well sourced, notable. -- Earl Andrew - talk 06:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep The individual is a willing public figure so his personalpreference in regards to having an article or not should not be given weight. It is much more reasonable to consider courtesy deletion for private figures. A well known political activist is clearly not a private figure. We also have enough sourcing to meet WP:BIO so the article should be kept. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly notable, as is evidenced by the profile of him in Canada's national newspaper, the Globe and Mail (cited in the article), and by his recent role in the leadership race for the Conservative Party of Ontario (the second largest party in Canada's largest province). His own preference to not have an article, as JoshuaZ notes, should not be relevant to our decision. Bucketsofg 15:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. The numerous references show, cumulatively, pretty clear notability. The subject’s apparent desire to not have an article about themself should carry no weight here. The key here, as with all such articles, is to ensure that WP:BLP is being followed, which the well-cited content of the articles seems to do. —GrantNeufeld (talk) 16:08, 1 November 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 Internet Leaks. Black Kite 20:19, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ringtone (song)

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

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

Questions about its notability by other users, one user tried to redirect, but hadn't waited for discussion to close Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

CNR (song) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Skipper Dan (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

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

Adding sister minor singles off the same album to the nom. They should be handled as a group for consistency. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: I started this RFD because the redirect process wasn't handled probably, not because I think the song's not notable. I believe that there is precedent that notable artist + single + music video = notable. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirect There is no claim of notability in the article for the song. I nominated for merge with the album, another editor merged, it has now been unmerged and re-merged a couple of times. It is good it has been brought here for discussion. There is no WP guidance that makes this song notable because there is a video. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

By the same rationale, Beautiful, Dirty, Rich, a good article, would get booted; it wasn't even released as a single, as Ringtone was Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:33, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

And as an experienced editor you should know that it is WP guidance that matters, not what happens in other articles. Have you notified other interested parties? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

If by interested parties you mean the people involved in the article discussion plus the articles creator, I believe I have Purplebackpack89 (talk) 16:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes you have, sorry for suggesting that you might not have done. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Internet Leaks. Song is barely notable to justify a full article. --MASEM (t) 16:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Singles from established artists seem like they should be notable. Also helps make the Weird Al singles succession in {{Infobox single}} continuous as opposed to jumping erratically. But I am the article creator and there aren't a lot of sources covering the single on its own in great depth (but then again it is only 1 song), and I readily cop to this argument being more or less "inherited" notability, hence my vote is Weak. --Cybercobra (talk) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge to Internet Leaks. Doesn't even begin to meet the guidelines established on Wikipedia:Notability. CNR (song), Ringtone (song), and Skipper Dan all should redirect to the Internet Leaks page. The articles are too brief and lack any citations or anything to establish notability. Funny how I post a discussion about whether or not to merge, and no one responds until I go through with the merge. Spman (talk) 04:26, 26 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. JForget 00:26, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Robb knie

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

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

Non-notable financial analyst Orange Mike | Talk 14:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete unless someone can come up with some sources and a better claim to notability. Hardly even good enough to pass speedy as it is. The one link provided is only a mention. Hairhorn (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Non-notable. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:17, 26 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. JForget 00:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Kinwardship

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

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

Admitted original research and neologism. Orange Mike | Talk 14:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable original research. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 14:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:N. There was already a prod on the article. Joe Chill (talk) 15:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: The creator of the article directly says on its discussion page that this was original research. Doesn't get much more straightforward than that. —Smeazel (talk) 19:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Drivel. Also unquestionably OR. andy (talk) 20:47, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. tedder (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Was speedied once, but then re-created. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 20:42, 29 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. JForget 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] SC Stunts

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

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

Non-notable film project lacking GHits of substance and zero GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 13:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: per nom - making a few videos and posting them on MySpace does not make one notable without (the lacking) third party coverage. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 00:44, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Nothing notable here. Just some teen club in which they videotape their antics. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. These two related AfDs should be combined to save time. They both fail notability and the one is not likely to survive if the other is deleted. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete and append to include:

SC08 Extended Version (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

9mv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

13mv (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

none comes anywhere close to meeting notability. --Bfigura ^(talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete NN Josh Parris 10:12, 26 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. Most of the Keep votes are basically saying that all enclosed malls are notable, which isn't the case as many have been deleted in the past. With such a small size and little secondary sourcing, the onus appears to fall on the delete side. Black Kite 20:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] University Mall (Athens, Ohio)

University Mall (Athens, Ohio) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "University Mall (Athens, Ohio)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Almost no secondary sources found; unsourced original research, no real notability asserted. Only hits found were trivial (award for the manager of the Penney's) or false positives. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:50, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep. I was tempted to favor deletion until I perused the category. Can we really say that this mall is less notable than the other rather numerous Ohio shopping malls in Wikipedia? Athens is the home of Ohio University, and I believe that this is the biggest or perhaps only mall in town. It obviously requires sourcing, and in searching the Athens News website I found a large number of articles. By the way, according to the Athens News, it is now known as the Market on State.[21]. Cats can be neutered there, I hear.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

• I did find a couple sources that might help, but the article still needs a lot of work. Also, if the only coverage is local, does that really make it individually notable? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:56, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

But wouldn't coverage of most Ohio malls be local? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 22:59, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right. I don't know what the heck I'm saying. Anyway, I wouldn't oppose a merge since I can't find much more than what I just put in there (haven't confirmed that Tractor took the old JCPenney, but with the other three anchors accounted for, it has to be there). Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think it's absurd to have an article on every sizable shopping mall in Ohio. But that seems to be the practice. If someone nominated all except the most clearly notable for deletion, I'd favor deletion of all without significant statewide notoriety, and that would include this mall. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. It seems enclosed malls are of a magnitude that they're considered notable. Keep consistent with the practice of keeping articles on numerous enclosed malls. --JamesAM (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Given the number that have been deleted over time, what is this based on? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Agree with JamesAM, enclosed malls are almost to the point of inherent notability.--Milowent (talk) 04:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete enclosed or not enclosed is not a determining factor in notability. Enclosed malls can be rather small. Generally super regional malls are notable and there is no indication that this mall falls into that size range. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:29, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Actually, most mall articles have been long since deleted, or redirected to the locality. It would immensely help to know the size of this mall, and I finally found it, [22] It's 300,000 square feet, and that's way under the size for most cases. DGG ( talk ) 05:16, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Malls over 800,000 square feet are "super regional" and have commonly been kept in AFDs. This one seems of local interest only, and does not even make the 400,000 square foot cutoff for a regional mall. Per a tally on the talk page of Wikipedia:Notability (shopping centers) (failed notability proposal) of the size of malls and whether they were kept in some past AFDs, most this small have been deleted. Edison (talk) 22:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep see Category:Shopping malls for thousands of mall articles of all sizes which anyone can see who is willing to look up through the category tree. No valid reason provided to go after this particular mall. There is no criteria that establishes that only malls of a certain size or notability are to be kept in WP--these are just random opinions of certain editors. Hmains (talk) 00:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • If this was the first or only nomination of articles like this, then maybe you could claim that this article was targeted. But I don't see how this could be the case here. Small not notable malls are nominated on a regular basis. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:47, 31 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. JForget 00:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Jossie

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

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

The individual hasn't done anything notable in his career, so far. He was in the WWE training facility for a while, and now he holds a five-minute fake talk-show on the WWE's least important television show. None of that makes me believe he meets our notability requirements. iMatthew ^talk at 13:49, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 14:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Are you getting me? First, people should ignore the nominator's OR and POV about ECW. Besides being the GM in FCW (where he appears on TV every week), he also has a recurring interview segment on the internationally broadcasted ECW, which is often used to help build feuds. TJ Spyke 14:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not "getting you." My comment about ECW isn't OR or my POV. It's just common sense. How does either of the things you mentioned make him notable? If he were to get fired today, in 5 years from now, would we really need to know that he was the on-screen GM of a training facility? No, of course not. Same goes for his "talk-show" - nothing notable has ever happened on it, right? iMatthew ^talk at 14:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
    • How is calling ECW "WWE's least important television show" not POV? Besides the fact that you are implying A.M. Raw (which airs Sundays at 1AM and compresses Raw down into 1 hour) is more important, it's based on your own personal opinion and is OR. As for your second comment, you could say the same thing about any wrestler. Have you even watched the show? His segment has helped further push many feuds (like Benjamin-Sheamus, Swagger-Christian, etc.) Being the lead authority figure in a notable indy promotion (don't try and distort facts and mislead readers by claiming it's just a WWE training facility. That's like calling Triple A baseball teams nothing more than "MLB training facilities".) helps out his notability case. Hell, I would argue that his role in FCW alone has been notable enough to warrant an article. TJ Spyke 16:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep It's not even a question. He is a regular character on a weekly television show. The fact that this is even up for deletion is preposterous to me. --ECWAGuru (talk) 01:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• STRONG Keep Agree with TJ Spyke completely. RICK ME DOODLE YOU DOODLE 07:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep Oh boy. TJ covered matters very well. !! Justa Punk !! 04:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy Keep per TJ Spyke. GetDumb 04:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I hope the closing administrator takes these three comments lightly. TJ's rationale is wrong. Although he is a regular on the show, he's only been on it for a month or two, and in that time he hasn't done anything to establish notability. iMatthew ^talk at 12:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
    • "A month or two"...or four (according to the very article you are trying to have deleted). I hope the closing administrator takes notice that you are distorting the facts in pushing an absolutely unnecessary agenda. I also hope that the closing administrator sees that this allegedly "not notable" character has his own bio page on WWE's homepage Abraham Washington. Yes, all signed WWE superstars have their own bio page -- which is why all signed WWE superstars have their own Wiki page as well.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:20, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
      • • Having a WWE bio does not prove notability on our encyclopedia. iMatthew ^talk at 13:33, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
          • • Then please find a wrestler on the current WWE roster that does not have a Wiki page. He has a WWE bio page because he is on WWE television on a relatively regular basis. Just because you subjectively see ECW as a third-rate show, it doesn't change the fact that he is a regular character (not to mention his work in FCW). I'd like to also add that, in your attempt to persuade administrators to delete the article, you have used "Brian Jossie" in the various searches to establish notability. Yes, a Google search of "Brian Jossie" turns up 10,500 hits. But, for the record, a Google search of "Abraham Washington" (his ring name) turns up 207,000 hits. Perhaps this is more of an argument to redirect the article to his more well-known name of Abraham Washington. I've been arguing for quite awhile that Wiki is very inconsistent when it comes to establishing whether or not a main article should be a wrestler's real name or ring name. I'm sorry -- I just do not see the argument to delete him altogether.--ECWAGuru (talk) 13:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)**
              • • Considering we've had two presidents named "Abraham" and "Washington" of course there would be 207,000 hits of pages with those names together. For an example as you asked, Ranjin Singh has a WWE bio but no article. iMatthew ^talk at 13:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
                  • • • Not if you put "Abraham Washington" in quotes, which is what I did. And fair enough on finding that Ranjin Singh did not have an article. However, I'd absolutely argue that Washington's contributions (though for a shorter length of time) have been more notable than Singh.--ECWAGuru (talk) 14:12, 31 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dragons in the sky

Dragons in the sky (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Dragons in the sky" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

No claim that this is a notable book, doesn't meet notability for books, google doesn't help. Author doesn't seem to meet notability Omarcheeseboro (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this book. Joe Chill (talk) 14:21, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete This link says it clearly, this is a small, essentially self published, undiscovered book.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment What makes you say it's "essentially self published"? I looked around the publisher's web page, and can find nothing about their requiring authors to subsidize publications, or about any connections between the author and the publisher—nor is there anything indicating this on the page you linked to. Of course, even if it's not self-published, that still by no means means it's necessarily notable enough for a Wikipedia entry; I was just wondering why you said it was "essentially self published"... "Self published" and "published by a small press" are not the same thing. —Smeazel (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

you are correct, and i was being sloppy in my comments. it just looked like such a small, marginal publisher. i didnt check thoroughly to see if they charged for publishing. i have no more info than you. My aim was just to try to point out the titles nonnotability, but my choice of words was poor. to my thinking, many (but not all) books at the margins of small press/self published/vanity press start to all look the same (i worked in the book business for years)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete does not meet notability guidelines for books. JBsupreme (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Contrary to a statement above, I can find no indication that this book was in any sense self-published. Unfortunately, I can also find no indication of notability. There are a number of very positive reviews online, so maybe this is a very good book that deserves more notice... but until it's received coverage in reliable sources, Wikipedia is not the place for it to get that notice. —Smeazel (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

thanks for the kind words to the author. i like it when authors can hear that we are deleting based on notability not quality.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:45, 25 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. JForget 00:22, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] HillJack

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

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

Does not meet WP:ENTERTAINER. Evil saltine (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 13:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Name-drops a lot, but doesn't asssert notability. There is a band of the nearly-same name which may be notable, though its name isn't CamelCased. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: Article re-written encyclopedic to meet standards. Premature deletion under simple personal guise of unknown notability risks relevance of Wikipedia to others whom this American personality is recognized. In other words, just because you don't know who this person is, doesn't mean others are also unaware. Wise choice would be to secure Wikipedia relevance and allow re-written article to remain, so others will continue to look to Wikipedia for even the most obscure knowledge. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia does not include every bit of obscure knowledge. See Wikipedia:Notability. Evil saltine (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Then Wikipedia risks its own relevance. Just a word to the wise: Don't base Wikipedia upon your own known knowledge. Others would think less of Wikipedia as a reliable source. From Wikipedia:Notability "For articles of unclear notability, deletion should be a last resort." Consider this: The inclusion of this article does not hurt the relevance of Wikipedia... but removing it does. Wikiqwiki (talk) 19:35, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete No indication of notability. Above commenter (Wikiqwiki) seems to badly misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia; arguments that Wikipedia is risking its own relevance or importance by not including articles on obscure people and phenomena are nothing new, and don't hold any more weight now than they did when they were first advanced. What's needed to establish notability of this person isn't vague assertions that some people know who this person is or dire prognostications of Wikipedia's decline in relevance; it's links to coverage of this person in reliable sources. I looked, but couldn't find any. (A Google News Archive search, for example, turns up absolutely no relevant hits—it does turn up 65 hits, but most are about the country music band mentioned above, and the remainder simply use "hilljack" as a vocabulary word; none are about the subject of this article.) —Smeazel (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Not enough significant coverage to show notability. Kevin (talk) 00:01, 28 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. JForget 00:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Newman Enterprises

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

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

Article about fictional company within Young and the Restless. No reliable third party sources to demonstrate notability. No references at all, in fact--just a long plot summary. Blargh29 (talk) 13:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Do we need to update [{WP:CORP]] for fictional companies? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It reads like an extended plot summary for a soap opera. Warrah (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete It fails WP: GNG, not to mention WP:TRIV.
• On a side note, there's an alarming amount of articles just like or worse such as Chancellor Industries, Chandler Enterprises, NVP Retreats, Forrester Creations, and Fusion Cosmetics. Rocksey (talk) 00:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I have put most of them up for AfD. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:50, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• delete - fictional company should be part of the show CynofGavuf 07:13, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Elementary proof

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

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

Unclear as to notability, seems little more than a turn of phrase with no consistent meaning. Leon (talk) 11:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

To be a little clearer, the meaning here isn't ostensibly too similar to here and neither to here. Whilst the expression appears quite a lot, this does not make it notable. Surely "elegant proof" comes up quite a lot also, but that's not worthy of an article.--Leon (talk) 11:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Those links do all give the same definition - the latter two are just special cases of it as are applicable to that particular proof. The definition is consistent, just a little vague - it's one of those "I know it when I see it" things (in special cases it can be defined precisely). This could just be merged into mathematical proof, but I think there is enough to say to warrant a whole article. Some discussion of other elementary proofs would be nice, as would a discussion of why mathematicians like elementary proofs (with some quotes). Some history of the term and of the quest to find such proofs would also be good. I think if all that were written there would be more than enough to make a good article. --Tango (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep definition is consistent; subject is notable; article is well written and sourced. Gandalf61 (talk) 22:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. As regards notability, the remark by Goldfeld that the "elementary proof of the prime number theorem was quite a sensation at the time" seems enough for me. And (with Tango) I see the definitions pointed to above as being consistent. Paul August ☎ 15:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Regarded as a meaningful term and regularly used by highly competent mathematicians, whose judgement shouldn't be second-guessed here. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Google scholar finds about 1000 papers with "elementary proof" in their titles. That's way more than enough. I added a couple more references that are less about specific individual elementary proofs and more about the general topic of elementary proof. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: The nominator's assertion that "elegant proof" is not worthy of an article is far from self-evident, to say the least. Michael Hardy (talk) 00:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

  Indeed - we have mathematical beauty, which elegant proof could easily redirect to. --Tango (talk) 00:56, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment. For a good time, see the talk page for the corresponding Conservapedia article for proprietor Andrew Schlafly's doubts about the existence of √−1 and his theory that an elementary proof is one that can't be broken down into smaller subatomic particles. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment I wouldn't recommend Schlafly's judgement.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• If the issue is possible different meanings, one could limit the article to elementary proofs in number theory, which is to say proofs that use no complex analysis. That meaning of "elementary proof" is easy to source to lots of number theory texts. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Although the term isn't well-defined, it is widely used. The article could reflect several interpretations of the term, with sources. --Robin (talk) 01:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• keep (tiny COI disclaimer: I started this article) This is a term that is frequently used especially in the historical context of the Prime Number Theorem. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Two issues: (1) It's not a precisely defined mathematical concept; it's a cultural thing. That's not a problem if the article is up-front about that. (2) In regard to the prime number theorem the use of the term is traditional. What it means in other contexts is another matter. Maybe the thing should be two separate articles: elementary proof (prime number theorem) and elementary proof (mathematics (or something like that)). Michael Hardy (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I think this agrees with what I was saying: we could focus primarily on the meaning in number theory, where things are more clear, and mention lower in the article that "elementary" is used in other fields as well, with varying meanings. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Further Comment I'm prepared to accept that I might be wrong on the subject not being notable at all; however, I fail to see why it might warrant two distinct articles for the (at least) two usages of the word. See page 13 of this for some discussion of usages.--Leon (talk) 06:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I don't think two articles are needed; we can cover everything in one place and it will make more sense that way. Throwing the unusual stuff into a separate article almost always leads to that second article being poorly-organized and hard to motivate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:46, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree, one article is better. I don't see why something not being precisely defined should prevent it having an article; the article should just explain the definition and why it is vague and what disagreement, if any, there is about it. --Tango (talk) 13:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Its elementary, my dear. JBsupreme (talk) 16:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Whichever horse's ass nominated this page for deletion should clearly never be allowed near the deletion template again. Having said that, the way things are run around here, I expect the page to be removed regardless. ObsessiveMathsFreak (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Your foul language is completely uncalled-for. Please be WP:CIVIL. --Robin (talk) 19:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Obsessive: Please refactor your personal attack. Further, given what seems like a clear, well reasoned consensus to keep, your "prediction" that the closing admin will delete is unfounded and inflammatory (in a self-defeating, waive a red handkerchief in a bull's face sort of way). —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: A suitably short article on a widely used term; it isn't the article's fault that the term's definition is fuzzy, and the article discusses the fuzziness. Decently sourced. It could, like most articles, be improved, but there is no good reason to delete it. —Finell (Talk) 05:02, 31 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 remains in a poor state but there's a rough consensus here that there are enough sources to demonstrate notability and potentially produce a viable encyclopedia article here. ~ mazca ^talk 01:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Viola Profonda

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

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

I've just declined the spam speedy on this, though it's probably borderline. Is a new musical instrument notable? Wikipedia, it's over to you... GedUK  10:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why should a new instrument not be notable? At least it seamed to be notable to other-language pages of Wikipedia... It's name and construction is new but it doesn't stand for it's own, because it considers long european tradition of classical music theory. It is already accepted and has been presented in expert-forums: http://www.aesav.com/documentos/Calendario%20de%20actividades%20II.pdf

Greetz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.7.56.20 (talk) 11:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion because there is absolutely no evidence this is a notable instrument; when this is coupled with its recent invention and the only link in the article being primary this appears to be spam. Whether spam or not, if notability is not demonstrated - and it currently is not - then the article should be deleted. I42 (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep The idea of a tenor-range string instrument is relevant and notable as you can appreciate at:

• Viola da gamba
• Tenor violin

So it achieves to be categorized in the categories music theory and it’s verified existance in bowed string instruments.

Neither is the reader of the article being guided to buy anything nor does the article aim to sell the described object; so it’s not spam.

Moreover it was also already accepted in other-languages Wikipedia-pages.

Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come.- ^[1]

— Diderot

Why should Viola Profonda not be notable? Just because it has not as many hits as Air Jordan yet when locking for it in a search engine?

Brgds

• Comment No reason why it should not be notable. But is it? An official website is not an indicator of notability. There has been an article on the German Wikipedia, with so far as I can see no attempt to nominate for deletion. However, the different language Wikipedias have their own rules and procedures. There only appears to be one of these violas in existence - so far. If more references from outside sources were forthcoming, including perhaps some supporting the idea behind the instrument, things might look rosier for the article. (Personally, I think the theorising behind the development of this instrument is a bit like the Baconian theories of Shakespeare, but rather like the idea of the instrument. With due respect to the viola players I know, I've never quite seen the point of an instrument so close to the violin...). As to ghits, they are an indicator not a requirement. References outside the 'official' and self-edited are essential. Peridon (talk) 19:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Found one source in spanish.[23] Which does still not warrant a separate article. Maybe this can be mentioned somewhere?--Tikiwont (talk) 20:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you for this comment. (Concerning the German Wikipedia-article: it was initially deleted because of the form and then accepted after having executed some changes.) The most important point on the theory of this instrument is its timbre (which also differs a Viola from a Violin and which is the main reason for the existance of both instruments): one of the most important issues in music in general. The own tone-colour of this tenor-string instrument, the possibility to play it easily being a Violin player and (again) the completion of the classic music-theory of four seperate voices within the strings-family make it notable. Brgds —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Weak Keep I did find two newspaper articles covering the instrument, which would seem to meet the criteria for multiple secondary sources. That's assuming, however, that these newspapers are reliable sources—they're both foreign-language newspapers (La Razón from Bolivia and El Comercio from Asturias) with which I am unfamiliar. —Smeazel (talk) 20:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Page of a recognized composer announcing a composition for Viola Profonda [[24]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pro.tone (talk • contribs) 20:40, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Duplicate !vote struck Reference on the page of the spanish viola association.[[25]](Pro.tone (talk) 20:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

• announcement in the classic magazine with most reputation in germany [[26]](Pro.tone (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC))

• I think the article should be kept, unless the instrument builder really wanted to produce just one copy - which is hard to believe. Imagine Wikipedia had existed in the year 1700. Then we would have discussed whether the pianoforte was notable. The Viola Profonda does exist, and a few compositions have been written for it. But the writer of the article could have put more stress on the fact that filling the gap between viola and cello was Yañez's idea, and not a need that was deeply felt by the musical community.

There are also some things I miss in the article. What about the instrument's size? Is it bigger than an alto? The prototype was built in 2007. How many Violas Profondas are in existence now? How many compositions have been written for this instrument by now? Is there anyone who knows? Sijtze Reurich (talk) 01:15, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. A list of completed compositions can be found here: [[27]] There are already much more in progress, but naturally they can't be posted in this article yet. Furthermore the VP is able to cover the tenor voice in any string quartet-composition with declared tenor-voice; for example the "Art of fuge" of J.S.Bach. The "Art of fuge" was already performed at the VPs' world premier (please see the CRESCENDO-reference in the article) and at the 2nd national congress of the spanish viola association.

Regarding the size of the VP and the existing number of items the article has been updated. Any additional, detailed information would be added in a future.

Brgds Pro.tone (talk) 06:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

In 1700 we might also have discussed other instruments which did not go on to become notable. Wikipedia requires articles that are already notable, not those which might become so. I42 (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear I42, "which ...might become so." is interesting. In 2007 Wikipedia didn't seem to have a notability-concern with a new instrument as you can appreciate here: Reactable. At least it wasn't nominated for quick-delete... The VP exists, was mentioned in reliable sources and has a logic fundament; therefore the VP-article is notable enough to be kept.

Pro.tone (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; each article has to be considered on its own merit, and comparison with the Reactable article is irrelevant. So, considering the VP alone, the fact that it exists is not an indication of notability. Nor, in itself, is the fact that some pieces have been written/commissioned for it. However, the references to it may assert notability; I haven't had the opportunity to properly study them yet, and may not be able to form a judgement at all as they are not English publications. If a closing admin does decide notability is met then those references must be incorporated into the article. I42 (talk) 09:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dear I42, the comparison with other articles is irrelevant, right. The hint to the Reactable-article was intended to aim with a 2007-view at the "In 1700...instruments which did not go on to become notable"-argument. BrgdsPro.tone (talk) 10:10, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - not all new instruments are notable, but based on the foreign-language sources, this appears to be so. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 2 November 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 speedily deleted as a hoax . TNXMan 14:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Filippo Perucchini

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

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

It's a hoax article about a footballer who has never played professionaly. Luxic (talk) 10:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Luxic (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment If it's a hoax, shouldn't it be a speedy delete? If not, delete anyway as there are no claims to notability as required by WP:GNG. WFCforLife (talk) 12:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete hoax, with an admin taking a look at the creator's contributions in general. Creator appears to have a long history of creating hoax articles, and has on at least one occasion re-created what seems to have been a speedily deleted article (Emanouel Okoue). I have no way of telling on what basis it was deleted and re-created, but it definitely needs to be looked at. WFCforLife (talk) 12:27, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete - a blatant hoax. I have tagged it for speedy. GiantSnowman 14:26, 25 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 speedied G3. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] McCarthy Jones

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

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

Aside from WP:V and WP:NOT#NEWS concerns, this appears to be a hoax. No evidence to support the article can be found and the obviously fake "McCarthy Jones Last Known Picture" is the clincher for me. I42 (talk) 09:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Speedy delete - clearly a hoax. I've tagged it with {{db-hoax}} andy (talk) 11:56, 25 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. NW (Talk) 15:51, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] OutSystems

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

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

Promotion of non-notable company, written by a series of SPAs. Haakon (talk) 08:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 09:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep: The article content needs work, but OutSystems is noteworthy in its market (Reuters, Reuters, TechRepublic), and in its country as you can see by the amount of articles originally written in Portuguese (OutSystems in the news). Plus, I would be sad to see only very large companies beeing described in wikipedia. It is not uncommon for me to look for information about companies of similar or even smaller size, like some that appear in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Video_game_companies_of_the_United_Kingdom. User:lucio_ferrao —Preceding undated comment added 18:43, 25 October 2009 (UTC).
  • Arguing that smaller (and therefore lesser notable) companies should be on Wikipedia is an argument for changing Wikipedia's guidelines, not for keeping this article. "Other stuff exists" is not an argument to keep this one. Haakon (talk) 20:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. Plenty of coverage in mainstream Portuguese media - Público (via Lusa), Expresso, Diário de Notícias, Sapo. Gr1st (talk) 18:56, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I should also note, however, that the Reuters sources given above are both press releases and therefore do not confer notability. Still a keep from me, however. Gr1st (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Is this company only notable in Portugal for serving a Portugese market? From a global perspective, this company is not notable. Miami33139 (talk) 20:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • The last time I checked, Wikipedia's notability guidelines didn't require the subject of an article to be notable "from a global perspective", but rather to be the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Gr1st (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This company is notable internationally. It has been included in two Gartner Magic Quadrants. In particular, OutSystems was rated the most visionary company in Gartner's "Magic Quadrant for Application Infrastructure for SOA Composite Application Projects". It has also been covered by other international analyst firms like the Butler Gruop, Ovum, Forrester and MWD Advisors, as well as independent sources like Techrepublic and Atos Origin. All these external sources were included in the original version of this article. OutSystems has an international presence and doesn't only serve the Portuguese market. Mozzello 12:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: — Mozzello (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Haakon (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Gr1st (talk) 16:36, 31 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. JForget 00:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Marcus Davis (American football)

Marcus Davis (American football) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Marcus Davis (American football)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Subject is a freshman college football player who has not yet established notability. While college football players can satisfy general notability guidelines, a good faith search does not reveal significant non-trivial coverage in the mainstream media (i.e., coverage beyond passing reference in game coverage). Cbl62 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. — Cbl62 (talk) 08:14, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:ATH (hasn't played in the highest level of the sport) and WP:GNG (hasn't receivied significant third-party coverage).--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 13:25, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete He's only caught one pass in his college career. To include him would almost be like saying that any BCS football player's article should be kept. The inclusion of college athletes should not be so broad. --JamesAM (talk) 16:53, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment-For the record in future AFD's it's nice to notify the author of the discussion, also in the edit summary in the article, you should switchout Nominationname with name of the article, I have no opinion one way or the other on the article.--SKATER ^Speak. 19:16, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about that Skater. This is my first AfD nomination, and we had spoken on your talk page about the article. So I thought you were aware of the intention, but I should have provided a further note about the AfD when it posted last night. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  No worries, you might wanna try WP:Twinkle takes care of the pain in the ass that is deleting in a couple of seconds.--SKATER ^Speak. 03:04, 26 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. JForget 00:17, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] PyGoWave

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

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

The article does not indicate any notability of the software and reads like a description better suited to the project's own website rather than Wikipedia. Speedy was declined on the grounds that it is not blatant advertising, and the PROD was contested on the grounds that "This needs to be there because of being only viable alternative to the open-source future of the web." ♣ Ameliorate! 08:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: As it stands now, the article may not be blatant advertising, but it is certainly stroking this area, since it would appear that the article itself is simply a copy off a description page from their own website (e.g. notice the lack of Wikilinks). In addition, the argument that Wikipedia must have this article is flawed too. Not until this piece of software becomes a noticeable alternative to the current Google Wave server can its article be justified. And as of right now, it is not even public yet. And I see no Third Party sources describing this software just yet. --Svip^pong 09:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 11:20, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• KEEP: It may need to be cut down/altered to fit into Wikipedia, but it is important for various Wave servers, not just googles, to be listed. Pygo, specifically, implements an open and documented client/sever protocol...something google has not got. For developers working on making clients from scratch, its not only an "alternative" its our only realistic option. -ThomasWrobel(13:42, 27 Oct (GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.163.17.125 (talk)
  • Note that your reasoning should be based on Wikipedia policy, in this case WP:N and/or WP:IAR. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I can't find any reliable source coverage beyond the Mashable story; at least 2 reliable pieces of coverage are required by the notability guideline. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete Wave is going to be the next buzzword for throwaway projects isn't it? Miami33139 (talk) 20:18, 29 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. JForget 00:16, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tricadecathlonomania

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

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

non-notable and WP:MADEUP. Ironholds (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this scavenger hunt. Joe Chill (talk) 13:58, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm sure this is a real event, and I'm sure the participants enjoy themselves - but we can't have an article unless there are reliable sources, and I'm not seeing evidence of that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:22, 28 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. Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Garuda Indonesia Flight 865

Garuda Indonesia Flight 865 (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Garuda Indonesia Flight 865" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Fails WP:AIRCRASH Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 07:22, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep - Resulted in the death of three people in my mind any incident causing fatalities should be kept and expanded on. Plus WP:AIRCRASH is but an essay, not a guideline nor policy. -Marcusmax(speak) 18:19, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I decline. The article itself does not include appropriate encyclopedic content.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Standard practice here is that accidents in commercial airline flights are notable if death results. What is needed is expansion. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG. Article can easily be expanded from this source. Mjroots (talk) 08:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as per Mjroots.--Jemesouviens32 (talk) 08:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep resulted in death, just a stub needs expanding not deleting. MilborneOne (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment Lack of source, is this keepable or does it meet the criteria for deletion?--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 02:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you need sources then I have found many; [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35]. -Marcusmax(speak) 02:54, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I see.--Berlin Approach | Lufthansa 533 at FLT230 01:16, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone please close this AfD? I'm tired of waiting for more consensus, but noooo, not even a single user is contributing to this AfD.--One moment, Reciever | Thank you for your instructions. 13:09, 30 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Italo-Greek Orthodox Church

Italo-Greek Orthodox Church (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Italo-Greek Orthodox Church" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Completing nomination found incomplete. See below for original nominator's rationale. Debresser (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I am unable to find reliable third party references other than those that have apparently been created by or derived from the person who maintains the web page. There is no evidence that this "church" holds regular services nor that any of the dependent parishes other than the cathedral actually exist, with the exception of one that has a contact name and number and says "in formation;" but that only gets relevant google hits for one posting on an Eastern Christian message board. The only photos on the website with people in them are from a concert. Evidence suggests that this "church" consists of one person. [I am responsble for the highly inclusive editing of the list of cathedrals in the United States and included a number of small "cathedrals" of obscure jurisdictions which showed evidence of at least having a building and one dependent congregation, so I am not being super-picky!] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipcedric (talk • contribs) 16:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote to keep this page, not matter the status of the church today, the Italian Orthodox Christians are a historical minority, established in the US since the early 1900's. --Leonardo Alves (talk) 21:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps then the article should be rewritten with the historical material first and a very brief mention of the current diocese at the end, and maybe retitled to refer to the ethnic group rather than the church. I actually deleted the historical stuff because the current "jurisdiction" has no apparent real connection to the Italo-Orthodox ethnic group or history; so that can be recovered.--- zipcedric 11:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipcedric (talk • contribs)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Originally the article contained some information on the historial IGOC, but the content was lost amidst the many editions. And even if it is now an episcopus vagans it could still be worth keeping the article .--Leonardo Alves (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 19:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Weak keep -- According to the website, this is a denomination with about 20 parishes in USA and CAnada. I have not investigated what has been removed, but unless it is completely wrong (even if lacking WP:RS) it ought to be restored. One of the parishes goes back to 1911. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Strong evidence suggests that this "church" consists of one person. There is no evidence that any of the listed parishes actually exist, other than the cathedral. There are no photos or evidence of any congregation; the only photos with other people present are of a concert. There are a number of statistics given which are wildly implausible, including thousands of members, four priests, etc., but not one name other than that of the bishop is presented (and one other name, for a parish "in formation" in North Carolina, which generates only one single hit on an eastern Christian discussion board.) The weblog linked to at the bottom of the article has no entries.

Only one editor, Leonardo Alves, has contributed to the parts of the article that make substantial claims for the history and continued existence of the diocese.

My experience compiling the list of cathedrals in the united states suggests that even very small jurisdictions with a handful of parishes -- some non-canonical orthodox, some in the Old Catholic lineage, some with mostly likely a few dozen members at most, generate multiple interconnected websites, photos of congregations, etc. that indicate the actual existence of a community. The absence of this evidence for this jurisdiction is very telling, and the apparent spuriousness of some of the claims in the webiste and in the article throws into doubt all of the historical information, which was evidently added by the same user who is now defending the site (and who protested the earlier "vandalism" by an editor who inappropriately wrote into the article inflammatory but likely accurate statements about the credibility of this "organization.")

I think that there is very likely a conflict of interest issue with the user who writes, edits and defends the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipcedric (talk • contribs) 17:31, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep I'm going by IAR here a little--their page on the history [36] is extremely plausible, consonant with their statistics, [37] , and does not make the extravagant claims typical of groups having no real existence. I note that the earlier versions o fthe article are much fuller than the present & should be checked also--the material on the history has been removed as not strictly relevant, bu tI'd say just the opposite. If they were a new denomination, that had achieved a single church, then I would have my doubts, but this seems not to be the case--They are rather a remnant. This is not the type of subject which can be researched properly online, The problem is that there is an Italo-Greek Catholic church, similar, but in communion with Rome, and most of the apparent references to Italo-Greek Orthodox Church refer to that one. DGG ( talk ) 23:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some of the arguments for “keep” are based on taking at face value unverified information from the website of the “organization”.

The numbers of parishes (2 or 15, depending on which source) and faithful (3,000) aren’t inherently implausible for all small ethnic jurisdictions, but they are wildly implausible for this one given the lack of evidence of a functioning community even a small fraction of that size.

This jurisdiction seems to consist of one man talking with himself. I will withdraw my suggestion for deletion if I see some concrete evidence that the Italo-Greek Orthodox Archdiocese is an actually existing jurisdiction with any kind of functioning congregation anywhere in the country. Nor is there clear evidence of any historical continuity with any previously existing church or ethnic group.

The parishes listed on the website other than the cathedral parish and, possibly, the single parish “in formation” in North Carolina are either defunct or fabricated. It is impossible to find any information about them. The “parishes” listed all have e-mail addresses at the same domain, IGOARCH.org, and have no names of individuals associated with them. They have no addresses and no evidence of a physical building, nor do they generate any hits on Google other than those from the IGOARCH web page (with the exception of one name associated with a parish “in formation” in North Carolina, which only gets one hit on Google which connected with one message on an Eastern Christian message board.)

There are no names of other priests associated with the diocese other than the “archbishop,” even though the website claims 4 priests. By digging into some of the supporting documents, I found two names of “finance council” members, but nothing verifiable or that generated any hits on Google.

Even the website for the Cathedral makes no claim of any services since Easter season 2009.

In comparison, even extremely small non-canonical ethnic or old calendar Orthodox groups, or Old Catholic or traditionalist Catholic groups in the United States will give clear evidence of at least a handful of locations, of groups of faithful including at least a handful of people, names of different priests, etc. Some examples:

• Holy Orthodox Church in North America • Universal Catholic Church, • African Orthodox Church • Belarussian Orthodox Autocephalous Church • Old Catholic Church in America • Old Roman Catholic Church of North America

• Reformed Catholic Church

• Liberal Catholic Church International • Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church in North America • Russian True Orthodox Church in Exile, • Genuine Orthodox Church, • Albanian Orthodox Archdiocese of the Ecumenical Patriarchate in America, • Congregation of Mary Immaculate, • Orthodox-Catholic Church of America

Probably none of these groups have as many members (3,000) as the Italo-Greek Archdiocese claims, but they each have multiple verifiable locations with independent websites, in most cases photographs with at least several priests or both priests and laity. Even smaller groups, with a “cathedral” in a rented storefront or hotel chapel, or without a cathedral at all, give sufficient information to show that there are actually existing communities.

The inclusion of this apparently imaginary diocese in Wikipedia actually detracts from the various small independent orthodox and Catholic churches that have actual parishes and responsibility for the care of souls, as well as detracting from the credibility of Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zipcedric (talk • contribs) 23:57, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, 40 some odd Google hit, and, I might point out, no stated claim of notability. Abductive (reasoning) 04:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 06:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, evidently bogus fringe group, no evidence of existence beyond the imagination of its webmaster. Zipcedric argues the case well. Incidentally, the "Genuine Orthodox Church of Hellas", by whose bishop this person claims to have been ordained, apparently doesn't exist either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Still think weak keep -- This is a small denomination. As such the article is worth having, but needs to be heavily tagged for independent WP:RS. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Merge into Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of Italy for now, until more sources are presented.--Blargh29 (talk) 06:27, 3 November 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. JForget 00:14, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Note: The article was moved before the AFD closure to Nathan Greene. --JForget 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nathan Greene (artist)

Nathan Greene (artist) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Nathan Greene (artist)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Non-notable painter that wasn't eligible for speedy. I tried cleaning it up to keep it from being a blatant advertisement, but a search didn't help me find reliable sources to establish notability of an individual.

Admittedly, this is far outside my knowledge domain. I'm happy to be proven wrong. tedder (talk) 06:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- tedder (talk) 06:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

A search yields hundreds of Nathan Greene's paintings.Raggedyland (talk) 21:24, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That image search only showed a small handful of images for me, actually (EDIT: revised search term, above, does show hundreds). Searching on my (real) name shows over a hundred hits too. In any case, WP:GOOGLEHITS is a pretty poor argument. tedder (talk) 21:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the previous search used "Green" not "Greene". The revised search yields 2,320. Most of the images are those of Nathan Greene. My serarch yielded 15 unique Nathan Greene paintings of the first 18 images shown. Raggedyland (talk) 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but google hits don't mean it is notable. tedder (talk) 22:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Keep: [38], [39], [40], [41], and more sources on Google show that his art has received enough attention to make him pass WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 22:48, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • He painted key commissions for NASA while being granted access to launchings, landings, and astronaut training to photograph painting reference. He made two popular paintings for the VersaCare Corporation. [42]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • "Rarely does a Christian artist emerge with the balance of strengths and emotional intensity of Nathan Greene. His large, luminous paintings of Christ in contemporary settings deliver powerful images that go straight for the heart..."[43]. Joe Chill (talk) 22:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
  • From the article, "A Greene paiting hangs in the office of the US Senate chaplain Barry Black. The evangelical television show It Is Written uses a Greene portrait of Jesus in its opening credits." Joe Chill (talk) 23:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Good work Joe Chill! Those should all be added to the article. Dream Focus 06:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per User:Joe Chill above (sources quoted satisfy WP:N). - DustFormsWords (talk) 07:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep based on the sources found by Joe Chill. Edward321 (talk) 13:32, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Thanks to User:Joe Chill for saving an article that was proposed for speedy deletion ONE MINUTE after its creation.--Milowent (talk) 15:02, 28 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] List of chess openings named after animals

List of chess openings named after animals (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "List of chess openings named after animals" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

• Delete Article is non-notable topic. There is no notable reason to group or categorize chess opening by animal name. HyperCapitalist (talk) 06:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep We have already List of chess openings named after people and List of chess openings named after places. Why not to have third largest "group"? --MrsHudson (talk) 06:11, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and after this one is processed, depending on the outcome, I will AfD those too. HyperCapitalist (talk) 07:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Query, has any reliable source commented on the profusion of animal names for chess openings? Abductive (reasoning) 07:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I added this reference: Unorthodox Chess Openings by Eric Schiller. --MrsHudson (talk) 15:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. IMO, that is not a reliable source. Eric Schiller's books on chess have been heavily criticized. That includes Unorthodox Chess Openings, which received Grandmaster Tony Miles' famous two-word review in Kingpin: "Utter crap." Schiller's reliability on almost any chess-related subject is questionable. His reliability as a source for the names in this article is particularly dubious. I suspect that most of these "opening names" were just made up by Schiller and have been used by few if any other writers. Orangutan, Hippopotamus, Rat, and Hedgehog are certainly legitimate, but beyond that I'm very skeptical. Good luck finding "Horsefly Defense" and such in any real chess book. Krakatoa (talk) 18:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Even if Schiller's book is a reliable source it has no bearing on this AfD. Schiller's book is about the openings themselves -- not about lists of openings named after animals. One might understand why a book about openings named after people (Proper nouns) and maybe places (Proper nouns) might be interesting from a historical/biographical perspective, but I don't think this extends to types of animals. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Schiller's book is fine as a reliable source but agree with HyperCapitalist because as far as I can see the book asserts no notability about a collection (a list) of openings named after animals. SunCreator (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete even assuming that the main ref is reliable, which it appears not to be, what is exactly notable about chess moves named after animals? unless the moves resemble the shape of the animal, (trying to think of reasons for notability), this is an indiscriminate list, in that there is no information of value in such a listing. i could think of lots of lists of chess moves that would be discriminating, and im not even a chess buff.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Then which references should we use to prove notability? How about New in Chess, ChessGames.com, Chess.com? --MrsHudson (talk) 03:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• References which talk about the propensity of openings to be named after animals. Abductive (reasoning) 03:19, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• There are openings, which are named after animals. This is a fact. And we should not explain in the list WHY they are named so. We should just give reliable sources which can prove that the opening is really named after animal. And I was asking my colleagues (chess wikipedians) which sources we should consider as reliable. --MrsHudson (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Why are chess openings named after animals notable? This seems to be a "list of shades of colors of apple sauce" per WP:SALAT. HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• If you do not know why Elephant Gambit, Hippopotamus Defence or Orangutan Opening are notable openings it does not mean that they are not notable. --MrsHudson (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The question isn't if the openings are notable, it is if the list of openings is notable or somehow furthers the state of human knowledge. HyperCapitalist (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete, as indiscriminate and unsupported by reliable sources. These chess openings are not grouped by tactic or strategy or anything else relating to the playing of chess, unlike List of chess openings. Furthermore, some the actual names are in question, due to the self-published nature of the source (Schiller). Abductive (reasoning) 05:12, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• The list contain useful information and can autonomously improve reader's erudition. I do not understand why this list is worse than others. I added a lot of reliable sources into the article and will continue to add. --MrsHudson (talk) 12:14, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'll look at the sourcing again in a few days. Abductive (reasoning) 16:06, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete As per indiscriminate. The moves that have genuine notability within chess strategies, such as the ones cited by Mrs. Hudson, can have their own article. Warrah (talk) 20:17, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a good start. The openings are sourced and probably material about why the openings were named like they were can be found, if you allow some time. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 11:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep Some themes may be insignificant, but animal-themed variations have adorned opening books at least as far as back 1901. Some of the "animal" variations have become formidable weapons in top-class competition chess. A book has been published on animal-themed variations, aimed mainly for younger players (aka the next generation). Enough citations added, plenty more around - remember, "keep" does not a ton of citations, it needs only reasonable expectation that they can be found, but the recent edit adds some serious citations. I expect some "delete" votes to switch to at least neutral after check the added citations. --Philcha (talk) 14:02, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep After this article was nominated for deletion, the editors have spent a great deal of time finding citations and explaining the significance of these lines. More can and will be done in those regards, but the subject is notable enough to warrant keeping it. Krakatoa (talk) 17:37, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• My point in nominating this article wasn't that the lines/openings aren't significant/notable -- it is that a list of these openings based on them having an animal in their name isn't. For example, I would also nominate an article for nomination if it was a list of chess openings whose names were anagrams of some other word. HyperCapitalist (talk) 01:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

• Some years back I nominated for deletion the list of chess openings named after places (then titled "list of ethnic chess openings", the article was renamed following that debate). While I see no really strong reason why the "animals" and "places" lists should be treated differently, given that I nominated "...after places", I don't think it will be surprising that I am somewhat skeptical to the need for "...after animals". The problem with the articles is that the entries on such a list are quite loosely connected; the "Medusa Gambit" and the "Halibut Gambit" are totally different openings, and have little in common (except that they are only played by those with a death wish). The nomenculture is a fairly intereresting part of chess history, and most opening books cover the reasoning for the name somewhat, but I think Chess openings#Opening nomenclature does a fairly good job of covering that aspect. A further problem is that many of the entries on the list are very exotic, I would almost say that the author who gave these openings their names just made it up one day. "Crab Opening 1.a4 e5 2.h4" is White being silly, and I don't know of any book analyzing that. Others, such as "Great Snake 1.c4 g6" are an animal name attached to an opening, but which does not have widespread acceptance. My book on 1.c4 ("Starting Out: The English") does not use that name. The most notable animal on the list is probably the Hedgehog. With apologies to MrsHudson, who has made a number of very strong and positive contributions to our chess articles, and other members of the Chess WikiProject who I am now bucking against, my vote is to delete due to lack of notability and coverage of the vast majority of listed entries, and the lack of a chessical connection between the entries. Sjakkalle (Check!) 17:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment - If notability of the topic is in doubt, then it seems a case of WP:Notability/RFC:compromise A.4 in which the Majority supported "Lists may be exempted from the General notability guideline". SunCreator (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Excellent point, particularly since notability is the sole basis the nominator urged for deleting this article. Krakatoa (talk) 01:51, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep This artictle is based on real facts to it must be kept.--NovaSkola (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep per Suncreator Voorlandt (talk) 23:11, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
• Keep as notable. I Do Care (talk) 08:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete as non-notable, per HyperCapitalist. SyG (talk) 18:09, 31 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. JForget 00:13, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Lewis Simmons

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

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

DELETE. Is this some sort of joke? If I could think of a speedy deletion criteria for this article, I would cite one. In any case, obviously non-notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete: All that I can find for this is local news. Fails WP:BIO. Joe Chill (talk) 12:15, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -gadfium 21:34, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. It is sophisticated spam by the looks of things. The ext link is a commercial site. I have put it up for speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:45, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete. Clearly not notable. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 22:00, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete - did more than one charity auction take place even? The Andrew Williams (New Zealand) auction thing caused a bit of comment at the time so perhaps this is politically motivated but it's already covered on that person's page in detail - SimonLyall (talk) 03:41, 26 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 deleted per A3/A7 Skier Dude (talk) 06:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Benitez family

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

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

• Delete HyperCapitalist (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Speedy delete, not even a vague indication of notability. Why did this go to AfD first? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

  My mistake. Speedy away. HyperCapitalist (talk) 06:14, 25 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. JForget 00:09, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Longest

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

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

This is not a proper disambiguation page--it is essentially just the (incomplete) results of a PrefIndex search. And it is unnecessary: There are no articles for topics named simply "Longest", so there doesn't seem to be any sensible place to redirect it to. ShelfSkewed Talk 03:55, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Not a proper dab page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Deleteas per above, seems uncontroversial to me. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:23, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete- Maybe redirect to long. Comes under WP:DAB#Partial title matches, doesn't it? Lord Spongefrog, (I am the Czar of all Russias!) 20:39, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete From WP:DAB, "Disambiguation is required whenever, for a given word or phrase on which a reader might use the "Go button", there is more than one Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead." I don't think it's likely that anyone would just type "Longest" hit "Go" and expect it to lead to any of these articles. ‐Smeazel (talk) 20:42, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Fails WP:DAB. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A thinly disguised list of Wikipedia articles that begin with the word longest. Hmmm, maybe we should keep it around, someone will improve it, there is no deadline... nah, shred it. Mandsford (talk) 13:01, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete A leftover from User:Eep² crusade to change the purpose of dabs. Taemyr (talk) 22:09, 28 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. JForget 00:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Libre (Ninel Conde album)

Libre (Ninel Conde album) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View AfD)

(Find sources: "Libre (Ninel Conde album)" — search, news, books, scholar, images )

Delete. per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:MUSIC. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:46, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete Doesn't look like it's going to be released. Not on her discography or anywhere else. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 04:08, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom Josh Parris 08:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 12:02, 25 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. JForget 00:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Rinse (album)

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

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

No references or proof to this album actually existing. Regardless, it's not notable per WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG as it's unreleased and hasn't received extensive media coverage. Chasewc91 (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this album. Joe Chill (talk) 12:10, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per above: this apparent demo has no significant coverage in reliable sources. Cliff smith ^talk 17:27, 25 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. Obviously there are many peripheral issues surrounding this AfD. The allegations of bad faith voting cannot be ignored. However, if we were to liberally discount all possibly disingenuous votes, we still have a hopelessly divided consensus. It would be best to wait until after the Arbitration case to relist. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 01:08, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Richard Tylman

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

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

The subject of this article fails both WP:ARTIST and WP:AUTHOR, and appears to be have been created as a vanity article. The article subject has not been the recipient of significant press coverage and bok which the subject has published appear to be more like self-published booklets. Searches for Aspidistra Press show Tylman to the only person published by this publisher, indicating self published works. Richard_Tylman#Poetry confirms this as it says they are self published. There are no critical reviews or commentary of his works, so notability as an author/poet is not existent. His visual arts notability is also non-existent. There is zero notability in anything he has done in Poland before emigrating to Canada. His working as an airbrush illustrator is not notable - this occupation is a dime a dozen, and it would appear that the long list of works are referenced to the actual advertisement, not critical commentary on his works. The other problem is the sourcing to Tylman's own website. Yes, the article does have a lot of sources, but none of them establish notability for the subject. Russavia ^{I'm chanting as we speak} 02:51, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the event that anybody considers Russavia's nomination to be an inappropriate extension of EE battles, I will a