Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 October 12

< 11 October	13 October >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy-delete (A7/web). DMacks (talk) 08:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pppppppo

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

Removed speedy tag (possibly by a sock). Reason was WP:CSD#A7 Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 08:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Withdrawn - Has been deleted, Lord Spongefrog (review) (I am Czar of all Russias!) 08:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Edward Phelps

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

First speedied, then PROD is contested. User is attempting to use Wikipedia as a memorial it appears as he has created the same content as an article and as a copy to both his user and talk pages. So, per the WP is not a memorial policy, the article is up for deletion here. ArcAngel (talk) 23:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did a search and was not able to find any reliable sources to establish notability of this person. ArcAngel (talk) 00:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing currently in the article to say he is notable and I did not find anything is my search to establish notability. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 01:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He can always recreate the article if he finds sources. Racepacket (talk) 12:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE As you will now notice there are several citations now noted. I may not be the best writer but John Edward Phelps was an artist for over 60 years. He Taught many students within Massachusetts as well as having his art put up in many art shows. He also published a book about the hidden murals in springfield. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmikgene (talk • contribs) 00:54, 14 October 2009
Hard one. I prod'd it after taking down the CSD, as my thought process was entirely in line with ArcAngel's argument above. The author brings up one Springfield Republican news article about his work and one Longmeadow MA Reminder article that describes him as an artist of local renown. Google reveals several references in local newspapers from Springfield to the CT line of the current exhibition of his work in Indian Orchard, MA. There is no question that the exhibition (and subsequently the artist) meets WP:V which is the threshold for inclusion. Whether the artist meets WP:N is a bit stickier. Currently, I do not think that the current Indian Orchard Mills exhibition and the local coverage are enough to satisfy WP:ARTIST, and lean toward delete; however should the author identify any secondary sources regarding John Edward Phelps and his work outside of the recent exhibition, I think consideration should me made to keeping this -- Samir 01:53, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again Do Not Delete It is pretty amazing to think that if we had computers in the 1850's that Van Gogh would not have been permitted to be honored on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kozmikgene (talk • contribs) 16:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question "The mural at the museum of Natural history" if it was a mural at the AMNH, he might be notable ( though the text says "restoring," not painting"). If it is the Springfield MNH, then probably not. What is needed here is a list of the major museum that display his work. DGG ( talk ) 22:37, 14 October 2009 (UTC)p[reply]

Again Do Not DeleteDGG states that the text says he restored murals, below is a quote from the text. John and Roger Wolcott were commisioned under the FDR Grants to paint the murals at the Springfield Museum.

"After moving back to Western Massachusetts, he found work with fellow graduate Roger Wolcott on a Federal Arts Project commission to paint murals for the Hall of Man in the Springfield Museum of Natural History."```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.119.1.179 (talk • contribs) 16:09, 15 October 2009

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

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

The result was Withdrawn Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Owen Lovejoy

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

~~Notability is unstated. Likely speedy.~~ rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing per WP:HEY. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep – Appears to be well known expert in field. Not sure why this was AfD'd. ttonyb (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's a microstub without a category? WP:PUTEFFORT. Geez. How hard is that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as hard as WP:BEFORE, apparently [1], [2], [3]. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here. Talk to me. Thanks. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 23:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the links I provided above, and plenty more out there. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bharath Kumar SS

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

Notability is suspect, one link is a the subjects own blog, the videos are - probably fits CFD but I am being cautious. Possible conflict of interest re: creating user - subject of article?. rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO, as it shows 0 credible references to support the claim of notability. (imho, it fits CSD A7. Looks like a vanity page.) Skarebo (talk) 03:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

-ranganath22ranganatha22 10:38, 13 October 2009 (IND) a credible and trustworthy reference has been updated, and the subject is a prominent figure in the industry circles, reconsider

Well… this “credible and trustworthy reference” does mention the name Bharath. That's about it. Google returns almost one million hits for this name. I wander if all of them are the same person… btw, there is at least one actor with this name who who goes by first-name. Skarebo (talk) 06:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No neutral third-party Reliable Sources to support notability. Priyanath ^talk 06:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 20:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - probable autobio, certainly spam about non-notable something-or-other. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It sounds like he did a great service to his country and that he had a long and fulfilling life, my condolences to his family and friends for their recent loss; however he does not meet the threshold of notability laid out at WP:N. Icewedge (talk) 03:40, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odell Louis Dubree

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

One of millions of soldiers who fought bravely in World War II, but nothing in this article indicates that he meets the notability standards of WP:BIO. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does not meet WP:BIO; this biography reveals nothing unique or important that he did. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think I speak for everyone here when I express our sympathies to the family of Staff Sergeant Dubree, who passed away on October 10. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a memorial. However, the nomination has brought the article about him from out of the millions of other articles, and into the forefront for awhile, and more people have read about Mr. Dubree than might otherwise have happened. In practice, the page will stay up for a few more days, and I think it has served its intended purpose. Mandsford (talk) 12:51, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does meet WP:BIO; according to the Any Biography section in WP:BIO a person can be consider notable if that person has received a notable award or honor. I can think of no higher award than the Purple Heart. Furthermore, I am shocked that under WP:BIO it talks about being notable if you are a pornographic actor or a criminal but says nothing about veterans and especially those who received Purple Hearts. There is a difference between being notable and being famous. I think the WP:BIO should definitely be used for notability and not be confused with infamy. A Purple Heart recipient is definitely notable. They might not be famous to most people alive today, but they were famous in the small towns across America that they returned to after the War. I think more people would be interested in researching Purple Heart recipients and how they were wounded in battle rather than Porn Stars and their performances. There were approximately 200,000 Purple Hearts awarded during WWII compared to the 13,104,355 total number of soldiers that fought in WWII. With those numbers I would consider the Purple Heart medal very hard to obtain. I would like to make a larger plea to the Wikipedians out there to make Purple Heart recipients just as notable as porn stars and criminals. 208.176.248.6 (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)Robert[reply]
- Comment A Purple Heart means that the recipient was wounded in battle. While we all appreciate the sacrifice they made for their country, I respectfully disagree that everyone who was wounded in battle is automatically notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. Counting the other U.S. wars, that would be hundreds of thousands of soldier biographies. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur with that 100 percent. I can think of many higher awards than the Purple Heart. I'm glad that Staff Sergeant Dubree, like my own late Dad, was able to come home from the War, and have a career, and raise his family. There were more than 300,000 U.S. servicemen who never made it home alive from World War II, and if any group of people deserved an article of their own, it would be the people who paid the ultimate price. However, an encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to must, by necessity, set rules, and WP:MEMORIAL is one of those necessities. Mandsford (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be specific, there are 20 United States military awards higher than the purple heart. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 15:41, 13

October 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I would also like to point out that the statistic given by the anon is false; those are the number of purple hearts awarded retroactively. National Geographic estimates the spread of purple hearts received, as of August 2008, to be as follow:

World War II: 964,409
Korea: 136,936
Vietnam: 200,676
Persian Gulf: 590
Afghanistan: 2,743 (as of 8/21/2008)
Iraq: 33,923 (as of 8/21/2008)

So, this man is one in over one million recipients. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 17:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as per my WP:PROD rationale, lack of reliable secondary sources to establish sufficient notability as well as the fact that Wikipedia is not a memorial. (Person apparently died on 10 October 2009 with the article created on 12 October.) There are also other awards that likely higher than the Purple Heart (even though for every other military decoration, servicemembers are recommended for them as opposed to being entitled it for being wounded in action). Such as the Medal of Honor, Silver Star, Bronze Star, and the Meritorious Service Medal. MuZemike 17:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frank Roche (International Banker)

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

No evidence this person is notable as defined by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. No evidence of reliable sources about this Frank Roche (there are several other Frank Roche's out there with reliable sources) in either google news or a straight google search. His only claim to notability is as a candidate for congress; but merely being a candidate does not confer notability in absense of reliable sources. Candidates may of course be notable for something else, but this guy does not appear to be so... Jayron32 20:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, as it sits, this would have been speediable, I'd think. Delete, unless sourced by independent sources to indicate notability. Friday (talk) 21:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it is absolutely 100% not speedyable. It makes claims that its subject is important, such as as a candidate for congress. That is a clear claim of importance, and as such speedy deletion is not an option. Now, the claim of importance may not qualify the subject as notable, but that has nothing to do with the speedy deletion criteria. Speedy deletion for articles of this type is typically reserved for people writing articles about their buddy who sits next to them in english class, not for articles like this. --Jayron32 02:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will add news sources confirming his notability BTNemeth (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete (per WP:POLITICIAN, WP:BLP, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTNEWS). Not speedy-deletable. Bearian (talk) 15:51, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I think he might be notable if he won the nomination, because then there will be fully enough newspaper coverage--every congressional race gets covered. but I see no clear evidence of that. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete, DGG said what I was thinking. It can be reestablished if he gets the nomination. Doc Quintana (talk) 23:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 01:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gino the Minnow

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

This looks like a copy and paste recreation of a deleted article. Also I don't think it is a notable book. Dr.K. logos 20:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is definitely a copy and paste recreation of a Wikipedia article. An identical copy and paste creation was deleted per WP:CSD#G12 copyright violation. I cannot though find any evidence of the original article. If this has been discussed previously at an AfD that resulted in 'delete' then this is eligable for speedy deletion as a recreation (WP:CSD#G4). I am not going to speedy delete it myself however if it hasn't been discussed anywhere. If the book is notable, then it would be possible to create a properly formatted article out of this. I'll drop a note at the talk page of user:PMDrive1061 who carried out the speedy deletion I have found evidence of. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not against it being made into a proper article, but this is a definite C&P of the monstrosity I deleted once before; it could be a conflict of interest as well. The comment on the talk page is, well, strange. Delete unless something can be done to bring it in line with convention. PMDrive1061 (talk) 00:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:N. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia is not the place to promote one's book. A lot of us Wikipedians are people who have dreamed of getting published, and who got some measure of satisfaction from having a self-published book. However, any book has to become notable before it gets an article on Wikipedia, and not the other way around. Mandsford (talk) 12:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Strong keep I think this may establish notability UltraMagnus^speak 20:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.

Delete - one local newspaper covering a self-published book doesn't equal notability, by a long shot. I can't find anything actually published with that ISBN, but the OCLC given is for The Cat in the Hat. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What's wrong with [4] Visit Shore magazine, and other reliable sources listed in article? Seems like it got enough coverage to me. Dream Focus 00:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Updated: ISBN verification: http://isbndb.com/d/book/gino_the_minnow.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Westlablonde (talk • contribs) 17:46, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That page shows ISBN 1615844651 (10 digit) while the article shows ISBN 9871615844651 (13 digit). I was able to find the 13 digit ISBN at this site, but it all boils down to the same thing: the book cannot currently be found in any libraries or bookstores. Amazon has it listed, but the only seller is Wolford himself. Amazon does tell us that the book is 40 pages long with lots of color pictures, though. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the information Dori. It looks like a self-published book. Dr.K. logos 02:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Oh, it's definitely self-published, as I wrote yesterday. That's the main reason I !voted to delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Does that matter? its not like we are debating on if it is a reliable source :D --UltraMagnus^speak 12:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually, yes, it does matter—self-published books don't contribute towards notability, per WP:Notability (books)#Self-publication. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Libraries with Gino the Minnow: http://catalog.wpl.lib.in.us/polaris/search/searchresults.aspx?ctx=1.1033.0.0.1&type=Default&term=gino%20the%20minnow&by=KW&sort=RELEVANCE&limit=TOM=*&query=&page=0 http://www.lapcat.org/ Another reference: http://www.guardonline.com/content/book-collaborators-encourage-cleanup —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.27.130 (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is extremely rare that a self published book can be notable, and the few library holdings don';t establish anything. DGG ( talk ) 00:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If self published means not being worthy of being in Wikipedia, then you should delete the following books: Ulysses, A Time To Kill, Bridges of Madison County, In Search of Excellence, The Celestine Prophecy, The Wealthy Barber, The Adventures of Peter Rabbit, The Elements of Style, The Joy of Cooking, Lifes Little Instruction Book, Robert's Rule of Order, Remembrance of Things Past, What Color Is Your Parachute, When I Am An Old Woman I Shall Wear Purple. http://www.simonteakettle.com/famousauthors.htm more references to self published authors:http://www.llumina.com/self_publishing.htm and more from Wikipedia itself on self published books: http://en.wikipedia.orgview_html.php?sq=&lang=&q=Self_Published What defines a book to be notable anyways? According to the Association for Library Service to Children, notable is, "As applied to children's books, notable should be thought to include books of especially commendable quality, books that exhibit venturesome creativity, and books of fiction, information, poetry and pictures for all age levels (birth through age 14) that reflect and encourage children's interests in exemplary ways." Gino the Minnow book empowers children to do something positively about something that troubles them. In Gino the Minnow's case, he does something positive about the problem with litter in our water areas. He encourages us all to help keep our environment clean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.51.27.130 (talk) 01:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what constitutes notability on Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Notability for the general criteria and Wikipedia:Notability (books) for the specific criteria regarding books. The criteria that other organisations use to define notability are irrelevant in determining notability for inclusion on Wikipedia. Regarding other articles, see Wikipedia:Other stuff exists and then feel free to nominate for deletion any of them that you feel do not meet the relevant notability or other guidelines. Thryduulf (talk) 08:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Per my cleanup of the page. I believe it is better formatted and overall should have an article. A little on the fence in terms of notability, yes, but we also have articles that are stubs and have less notability (my personal opinion for the stub bit).--LAA Fan 23:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability of this self-published book not established by the sources provided.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:02, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What a fantastic discussion. I am very pleased that my afd nomination has generated these quality contributions from everyone, including the IP. Thanks to all for participating. Finally thanks to LAAFan for his valiant efforts to rescue the article and the way he shaped it up. The article now is very appealing visually and contextually. The book's literary footprint and impact however remain rather obscure. Dr.K. logos 04:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added three more references; will try to add more.--LAA Fan 17:13, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article as it stands currently contains eight references:

LinkedIn page - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
Batesville Daily Guard Record - smalltown local newspaper only available with a subscription. However, the small part that is publicly available contradicts what it's being used to cite (i.e., it describes Scott Wolford as co-author, not author), so it should be removed.
Press release (biz.prlog.org) - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
Press release (free-press-release.com) - not considered a reliable source, so should be removed.
NWI - to me, this looks like the author wrote it based on the free-press-release.com press release, as it uses the same quotes word for word. Another smalltown local paper. Borderline.
visitshoremagazine.com - this is a magazine published by NWI (see previous). Some of their stories end up in the print edition, some only online. I can't tell which category this fell into, but I don't think we need two articles from the same source.
Herald-Argus - another smalltown local paper.
bakersfield.com - given that the author of this is "Scott" and the text is nearly identical to the free-press-release.com piece, I'm guessing that this was written by Wolford himself, and as such, should be removed.

That leaves us with maybe three articles, all from smalltown local papers.

Looking at the first criterion at WP:Notability (books)#Criteria, it states, "[This] criterion excludes ... publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book." Eliminate those, and we're left with zero sources.

User:LAAFan (and anyone else interested): feel free to add further references, but please, could they be ones that actually demonstrate the book's notability? Right now, we've got none. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 00:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Unreliable sources removed, also see my delete vote below.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy criterion presented by Dori any publication where the author or agents of the author speak about the book is also excluded. So I removed the remaining two citations. Dr.K. logos 01:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per Dori.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there's a smattering of minor coverage but nothing that would establish this as notable. -- Whpq (talk) 15:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Analyzing the arguments, I feel that the deletes had a stronger argument here. The sources given seem weak or non-existent in their mentions of the subject, and so the article does not pass the notability criteria for biographies or for entertainers. NW (Talk) 20:05, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diana DeCilio

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

Procedural: I speedied this article in August as a CSD#A7 - the article does not assert any importance for the person other than as an editor of the programmes listed. I have received a request to undelete it, and see no problem in doing so to bring it here. I have looked for sources and found little other than sites which list her editing credits (imdb, hollywood.com etc,), however it is very possible there is more out there, so is there? Black Kite 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the editor is a crucial part of the producing of these programs. She will have to process 100s of hours of material into a one hour show, so this for one denotes importance in the process. Second, all these shows have had proven success both critically and commercially and, in the case of the films, have won awards. So I would argue there is proven notability in this subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well - on that basis, you could claim notability for every important staff member who has worked on multiple award winning features. See WP:NOTINHERITED. To pass WP:BIO, DiCilio needs to have independent coverage of her and her work. Black Kite 22:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Black Kite -- A quick scan through the other American Film Editors on Wikipedia show that almost none has "independent coverage" of their work, yet they have no notability challenges against them. The editor is an absolutely vital part of the film-making process - and not like other staff members as you suggest. The way that the media cover films and TV is that almost never do they actually mention the name of the editor. Notability is judged within the industry according to the caliber of networks that hire the editor, and the commercial and critical success (including awards) that those shows achieve. On those criteria, DeCilio is clearly notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See essay other stuff exists for why editors are generally unmoved by this style of argument. Studerby (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it is a criterion state in WP:BIO that "The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for one." The award DeCilio won last week, from the Marbella International Film Festival, is one such notable award; and follows on from the nomination she received from the PGA for Thirty Days, and other awards mentioned in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citizenkane7 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I believe Citizenkane7 may be misinterpreting the WP:BIO criterion. DeCilio did not win an award from the Marbella International Film Festival, as far as I can tell. Rather, a documentary she edited was nominated for Best Documentary there, but did not win. Had it won, the award would have gone to the director, not to her as editor. Similarly, the Producers Guild of America gives its awards, as the name implies, to producers. I can't find any evidence that DeCilio herself was honored by having a project she edited nominated for a PGA award. The kind of award or nomination that could help establish DeCilio as notable would be an Oscar or Emmy for Best Editing, or the American Cinema Editors' Eddie Award. Furthermore, most of the sources cited in the article discuss projects she has worked on but without mentioning her or her work as an editor; thus, they don't help establish her notability. If DeCilio personally (as opposed to a production she worked on) receives a nomination for a significant award, or starts to receive media attention for her editing work on such productions, she can be considered for a Wikipedia article at that time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Retain. To correct Metropolitan90 on two points. First, American Faust won the runner-up prize for Best Documentary at the Marbella International Film Festival. Whilst it only mentions Faust as a nominee for the award, the announcement at the ceremony was that Faust won the Runner-Up award. This is likely to be updated on the website soon. WP:BIO mentions nominations and awards together, so this is academic. The point is that DeCilio worked as a producer and editor on American Faust, and, as producer, received the award from Marbella. It is incorrect that the director always receives the award for such awards. At the Academy Awards for example, the Best Picture award goes to the Producers, not the Director. The entry for DeCilio refers both to her work as an editor and as a producer. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In that case, you will need to provide a source that specifically identifies the film as winning the runner-up award, and that identifies DeCilio as the recipient, in order to verify this information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have added a New York Times review that specifically mentions DeCilio. I will also endeavor to secure the Marbella source. However, these editorial demands are both unreasonable in the context of how editors' work is judged and critiqued in the film industry; and is out of whack with Wikipedia's own standards on featuring biographies of American Film Editors. Look at the entries for Kent Beyda, Bud Molin, Frank Morris, Raja Gosnell, Brian Berdan. I opened these at random, and none of them has independent sources referring to any awards or nominations they have won. In comparison with them, DeCilio's entry is well researched and her notability highly corroborated. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 19:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy: Citizenkane7, why don you take it into your user namespace and you and 71.249.x.x can work on it there. The issue as I see it is purely notability: that can be easily demonstrated through published reliable third-party sources that mention Ms DeCilio by name and discuss her contributions to these movies/programmes. As it stands, notability is not demonstrated. (I don't see her mentioned by name in the NY Times link.) But at least by userfication the text can be salvaged and the article taken beyond an AFD. -rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 22:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but you did not read the article fully. The reference to the New York Times article clearly states at the bottom "written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor;" This is now more than sufficient notability demonstrated, and I hope it can lay this matter to rest. --Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the right article? (I can't find a reference to her in that.) Even as you describe it though, it just of the "credits"-style mention. There's no discussion of her as being notable in-and-of herself. We cannot have an article on everybody that has every been listed in the credits of a movie/TV programme.--rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 07:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the reference [5] The article does not list "everybody in the credits", it lists NOTABLE individuals who created the program. Since the New York Times is a notable publication (can we at least agree on that), this seems to establish notability. Citizenkane7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.249.6.101 (talk) 12:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it establishes that her name appeared in the New York Times, which is a reliable source. Appearing in reliable sources is a necessary condition of having a Wikipedia article; however, mere appearance in a reliable source, no matter how notable that source itself is, doesn't establish notability. For example, if the Times were to quote an eye witness to some notable event, say the crash of US Airways Flight 1549 into the Hudson River, and in quoting that person included that person's name, well, that person has "appeared in the Times", but is not thereby made notable and does not thereby merit a Wikipedia article. With DeCillio, all we have is a credit; while one may reasonably suspect that she is well regarded within the industry because she's been involved on prominent and successful projects, we have no reliable source to that effect. In other words, concluding that she's notable withing the industry merely because she has film credit is a leap of faith, which is not how Wikipedia works. Studerby (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - insufficient sources to establish notability at this time. Mere film credit doesn't establish notability. Studerby (talk) 19:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Having edited the productions is notability, and proven by the award and the NYTcitation for it. "Edited and produced" is a sufficiently key role in a film. DGG ( talk ) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which award did she win, or was she nominated for? No source has been provided yet to indicate that she was the honoree of the Marbella award. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - She was the producer of the film as well as the editor. Numerous sources have been provided for that. Nominations, and awards, for best picture awards often go to the producer of the film. Remember poor Sam Mendes when he left the Academy Awards empty handed in 1999, even though American Beauty -- which he had directed -- had won Best Picture? Producers win awards for best film awards, that's how the industry works. --citizenkane7 (talk) 03:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That is how it works at the Academy Awards. If someone asked for proof that the Best Picture Oscar goes to the producer rather than the director, I could point them to this page. But that is not necessarily how it works at film festivals. See, for example, the Cannes Film Festival, where the only person cited for the Palme d'Or win is the director. None of the producers (see [6]) are cited. Nor is it clear to me that that is how it works at the Marbella Film Festival. The source you have cited for this award is [7]. That page says:

NOMINEES FOR BEST DOCUMENTARY

Gonzo Ballet by Pat Buckley

Banksy coming for dinner by Ivan Massow

American Faust: From Condi to Neo-Condi by Sebastian Doggart

Winner Gonzo Ballet

DeCillo is not even mentioned on that page. I don't see how one can cite a page that doesn't even mention the subject, but does identify another person as a nominee, as evidence that the subject herself was nominated for an award or won a runner-up award. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep With many more sources to support notability than articles on other editors not currently defined as AFD, Decilio has a proven filmography in prominent positions as editor and producer in significant movies and TV productions. Isaacnewton7 ( talk ) 00:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, let's look at the sources one by one.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1385473/ -- This is from the Internet Movie Database. I was under the impression that IMDb was not considered a reliable source.
http://stanfordreview.org/article/iamerican-faust-condi-neo-condii-review -- Does not mention the subject.
http://www.marbellafilmfestival.com/ -- Does not mention the subject. (This is a Flash site, so maybe the subject is mentioned on another page of the site, but I have not found a reference to her.)
http://www.opposingviews.com/articles/video-mtv-s-16-pregnant-must-watch-tv -- Does not mention the subject.
http://www.realityblurred.com/realitytv/archives/future_shows/2008_May_29_mtv_announcements -- Does not mention the subject.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/11/arts/television/11sixteen.html?_r=1 -- Does not mention the subject.
http://www.afterelton.com/TV/2008/6/30days?page=0%252C0 -- Does not mention the subject.
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/storm-chasers-interception.html -- Does not mention the subject.
http://www.sundancechannel.com/search/?words=Diana+DeCilio -- This is a search result which shows that the subject was listed in the credits as an editor for each of eight episodes of a series.
http://www.sundancechannel.com/films/500257892 -- This is one of the eight episode pages found in the preceding search result.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2007/12/03/arts/television/03nimr.html -- Does not mention the subject.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/arts/television/01huma.html -- This is the New York Times citation discussed above. It does mention the subject. Here is everything it says about her, in context: "Lynne Kirby and Laura Michalchyshyn, executive producers for Sundance Channel; Robyn Hutt, senior executive producer for Court TV; written and produced by Alex Gibney; Alison Ellwood and Eva Orner, producers; Julie Anderson, co-producer; Diana DeCilio, editor; David Strathairn, narrator; music by Wendy Blackstone; Salimah El-Amin, associate producer and director of research."
http://www.imdb.com/video/wab/vi1593180697/ -- Another page from IMDb (see above).
http://www.variety.com/profiles/TVSeries/main/68782/The+Residents.html?dataSet=1 -- A listing from Variety in which the subject is listed as one of over 80 people shown in the entire credits of a television series.

So that's 14 sources, eight of which don't mention the subject, two of which (the Sundance Channel pages) are effectively the same source, and two of which are IMDb (believed to be non-reliable). Not one of these sources has one complete sentence about the subject, as far as I can see. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:36, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I have two respectful questions for you, Metropolitan 90: First, why do you say that IMDB.com is an unreliable source? It is a carefully vetted database which, like Wikipedia, is peer-reviewed. It complies with all Wikipedia's criteria for classification as a reliable secondary source. It is used by the entire film industry to assess the bona fide status of professionals and, in the case of DeCilio, clearly shows her to be one of the industry's top editors and producers. Second, exactly why are you targeting DeCilio so vigorously when you have not flagged for deletion any of the other American Film Editors who have even fewer credits, or secondary sources, backing up their implied claims to notability? mecca51 ( talk ) 18:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - In regard to IMDb, I actually went through a process of trying to get IMDb accepted as a reliable source, at least for some purposes, about a year ago at Wikipedia talk:Citing IMDb. But the proposed guideline was rejected, and IMDb frequently comes up for discussion at WP:RSN, where its reliability is, at least, disputed. Anyway, the only times the article cites IMDb are (a) to connect her with the documentary American Faust, and (b) to list her as one of the names related to a trailer from By the Side of the Road. I don't dispute that she is associated with those films, but they don't obviously establish that she is one of the industry's top editors and producers. As to me targeting DeCilio, I didn't nominate this page for deletion. I just happened to get involved in this deletion discussion. As to other film editors, maybe some of them should be tagged for deletion, but I have not made any decisions about that yet. I do note that User:Citizenkane7 claimed above that DeCilio's notability was at least as corroborated, or better corroborated, than that of Kent Beyda, Bud Molin, Frank Morriss, Raja Gosnell, and Brian Berdan. But Molin was nominated for two Eddie Awards, Morriss was nominated for two Oscars and won Emmy and Eddie Awards, and Gosnell is a successful director who had had a Wikipedia article for over a year before any reference was made to his prior career as an editor. I don't see how the minimal sources provided in this article establish DeCilio as being more notable than these others. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Producing and editing films with directors of the caliber of Cutler (September Edition) and Gibney (Taxi to the Dark Side) is definitely notable, and is documented at imdb.com . The NYTimes citation (rare for editors) makes it a slam dunk, especially on a film by Brett Morgen, who made Chicago 10 and Kid Stays in the Picture. mecca51 ( talk ) 18:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG and Mecca51. The article needs a rewrite, but I think its clear from the evidence discussed above that DeCilio meets the GNG as a subject for an article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the sourcing to establish notability is wafer thin. The sources that don't even mention her are clearly not relevant. This leaves a few mentions. Being associated with notable directors and producers do not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 15:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She's not encyclopedically notable. She's not in the public eye, and this will never be a biography. It will be a relisting of IMDb, which is no more reliable than Wikipedia. She doesn't have significant coverage in reliable sources, and she has not been recognized in her field of work. Lara 16:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:ENTERTAINER. Significant coverage in independent sources does not exist. NOTE TO CLOSING ADMIN: Neither Citizenkane7 / 71.249.6.101 or mecca51 have extensive histories in Wikipedia, however, they have edited the same articles a number of times: [8] vs. [9]. Socks or coincidence? Location (talk) 18:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Pardon me while I go sanitize the mouse I used to push the "keep" button. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gerbilling

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

Absolutely no coverage in serious, reliable sources. Was speedied as vandalism, but having been previously kept at AFD, it was considered ineligible and overturned at DRV. Delete. Stifle (talk) 20:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go with ~~delete~~ too, though my reasoning is a bit different from Stifle's. What we have here is a dictionary definition of the alleged practice, combined with a denial that anyone ever does it; and that's all there is to say. In other words, there is insufficient reliably-sourced content to write a standalone article.
Essentially, what I'm saying is, Wikipedia is not Snopes.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though I remain of the opinion that Wikipedia does not need this content, I accept that the consensus is against me. I think it behoves me to withdraw my "delete" with good grace.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not vandalism, but silly unsourced OR with no potential of becoming an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per sources, decently-sourced urban legend. Otherwise, merge to Richard Gere (most common target of this legend). I removed the pop culture section because nobody else cared. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Seriously, gerbils and Gere do not mix. WebHamster got himself blocked for going there, and consensus is pretty clear that it is not going to happen. Fences&Windows 01:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:WebHamster got himself blocked because he was irredeemably uncivil, not because of his opinions on inserting the urban legend on the article. I support that opinion and I'm still here. Please avoid giving the impression that WP censors editors only for their opinions. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article: it covers a reasonably widespread urban legend. Delete the pop-culture section, though. --Carnildo (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' It identifies the subject as an urban legend. There are two reliable sources in the external links section. Are we going to delete everything in Category:Sexual urban legends? Answering Marshall: There's more than dictionary-definition stuff in the two web pages in the external links section, so the article can be expanded. I see no reason to call Snopes unreliable. JohnWBarber (talk) 23:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another source: The Case of the Missing Gerbil, Norine Dresser, Western Folklore, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Jul., 1994), pp. 229-242 -- Samir 01:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job on digging up those good sources Samir ! Wacko Jack O 12:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weakish keep I think the sources in the article aren't quite enough to justify keeping this, but a quick scan of the article provided by Samir pushes me over the line. There's journals for that? Hobit (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Makes no claims other than that this is hypothetical/urban legendary, room for expansion. Declan Clam (talk) 03:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Valid encyclopedic topic and search term. No reason why Wikipedia shouldn't cover this topic. -- œ ^™ 03:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article discusses a widespread urban legend although should be presented in more of an encyclopedic form (ie: remove and/or integrate pop-culture & trivia). A casual search via google suggests article could be expanded with more mainstream reliable sources. --Nsaum75 (talk) 03:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
disgusted keep- as long as its kept sourced, and it appears there are sources available, i can't let the fact that i don't like it get in the way of the article existing. Umbralcorax (talk) 03:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the sources. Although, the article could use a good cleaning up. The term is definitely notable, per the sources.Wacko Jack O 10:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Proof that "Wikipedia is not censored". This on has it all, cruelty, bestiality and overall "gross" into one page. Notable enough as an urban legend, and enough keep votes that I don't have to hold my nose while typing. At least it's not a how-to ("You'll need some pumpkin seeds and a vacuum cleaner tube..."). Mandsford (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge. Actual and anecdotal cases of ... non-human items being lodged/inserted into people's rectums is rather entertaining and well-documented - by laughing nurses if no one else. Show scientifically how this particular practice is considered impossible and show the widespread pop culture usage of the idea. -- Banjeboi 13:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of relevant hits on google news, books and even scholar UltraMagnus^speak 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Um. It does appear to have been discussed in detail in multiple publications, thus meeting WP:N, and have impact in our culture beyond a dictionary definition. This is perhaps even more disturbing a Keep !vote for me than the time I !voted to keep an article about a hole in the ground. Ray^Talk 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not going to argue that the term doesn't exist. But, there's only a couple sources that discuss it as part of urban legends in general. It's not a subject that has numerous reliable sources that cover it in detail; it's something that gets mentioned in passing. It's not enough to form a stand-alone article by any means. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although this is not a particularly edifying topic, there do seem to be adequate sources available. For instance, Jan Harold Brunvand devoted an entire chapter to the subject in Too Good to Be True: The Colossal Book of Urban Legends (see Google Books link) Snopes.com is also a plausible source because they have a good reputation for fact-checking and reliability on the subject of urban legends. The Straight Dope has also discussed the issue (see Google Books snippet). And as someone pointed out above, there actually was a peer-reviewed journal article on the subject (though sadly I don't have access to JSTOR for the moment). These sources actually discuss the topic in some detail, not just mentioning it in passing. *** Crotalus *** 20:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Rectal foreign body - While there are clearly sufficient sources supporting this topic's independent notability, I think it might be better covered in the context of other things that have actually or allegedly been inserted into people's rectums.--Chris Johnson (talk) 20:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep truly stupid, but notable on that account. Adequate sources. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this is a notable urban legend. Moreover: can we have the cite to the journal article added to the article, please? -- Karada (talk) 11:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; The Google Books results clearly show analysis of this topic as an urban legend. When I first saw this, I thought maybe there was some mistake; somebody must be nominating an article on something other than the urban legend. But no, I was wrong. Abductive (reasoning) 18:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all notability arguments above - I am happy to see common sense, even if with a funny twist, vindicated in this AfD. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A very notable urban legend. Dream Focus 14:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A7. malo (tlk) (cntrbtns) 02:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YoungCat

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

Autobiography with little claim of importance, let alone notability. Gsearch for just the rapper drowned out by hits for juvenile felines; search for rapper + "Jerzeys Finest", rapper + label, or rapper + album coming up empty. Speedy tag was removed by IP editor without comment, so I assume a prod will be contested as well. Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 20:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A7 If I'm not mistaken, you can re-add a speedy if a new user removed it without reasoning. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom and Joe Chill.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carl Ricco

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

Non-notable musician. Subject fails both WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 00:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Another desperate attempt of using WP as a promotional tool.--SonicRay (talk) 19:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was G12 Jclemens (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Evan Royce

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

Proposing deletion for biography of a non-notable person. Google Scholar doesn't help establish notability. None of his jobs transfer automatic notability, and he has not generated news coverage or significant book reviews; I can only find a press release. There are some hits for the book (published by a very minor press) in Google Books, but these aren't very significant--they are mentions. Prod removed; find explanation on article talk page. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 20:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete WP:CSD#G12 of Kentucky Writer's Day 2007 bio list. Recreation without copyvio does not look promising. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ JimmyJamz

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

No news media hits, no book hits, only WP and Facebook type hits. I'm not even sure that there is an assertion of notability; many none-notable DJs have done as much as this person. fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 18:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- fr33k man ^-simpleWP- 18:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this DJ. Joe Chill (talk) 20:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 20:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC) RMHED 19:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boba Phat

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

No way this is notable. Just no way. Ok seriously, the references are either completely unreliable (Youtube, Facebook, Flickr) or not really about Boba Phat but just includes him among photos of funny people at a convention. This seems related to Miss Clit that is also up for deletion. Apoc2400 (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep With the assistance of Vyvyan Basterd, Miss Clit has been redirected to Blowfly's page, as I will agree while notability may be proven, defamation may be substantiated. However, Boba Phat is without a doubt a debate I am not going to give up as anyone who is ANYONE among the Star Wars, Cosplay & Comic Convention scene are aware of his notorirty, including a plethora of celebrities.SheighZam (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This AfD is being debated by editors in an external forum.

~~Delete~~Keep per nom. It has been firmly established in the past that none of these references are reliable sources nor do they really cover the subject in any sufficient way. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 18:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC) per IronGargoyle and TenPoundHammer below. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is nothing here--no notability. Drmies (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In response to a lengthy message on my talk page, and the remarks below from other editors: I also have looked at the sources. Strip the YouTube, Flickr, and blogs, for starters; then remove the many references that don't actually mention the subject, and what you have left isn't much. For Irongargoyle, this one article is almost enough--but it only mentions the subject, who gets a couple of sentences in this article from a local paper. Let's face it, we're talking about a person in a suit walking around conventions--no wonder there is no significant discussion in reliable sources. The subject simply is not notable, and while the Hammer and others, below, might change their mind, I don't see any reason to do so. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ::Drmies, walking around in a convention center in a suit IS notable given that he has been featured in a movie - "Crashing the Con", SEVERAL news articles, has been interviewed to be featured in an upcoming George Lucas film (and George Lucas does NOT make fan films - this will be his first), as well as the fact that he is completely recognizable as "Boba Phat" by those in the Star Wars, comics, and cosplay genre. He has been performing as this character for years, yet the scene is first NOW starting to explode, as you can easily see by the increased attendance at now-massive Comic Cons such as San Diego. and as I am sure you are aware, notability even among a niche group is just that - notable. Why don't you personally contact Seth Green, J. Scott Campbell, Kristen Bell, Jane Wiedlin, Casey Pugh (Vimeo creator), or Anthony Michael Hall - ask THEM if they know who "Boba Phat' is. You'd be VERY surprised at his fan base.SheighZam (talk) 05:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Sources just don't cut it; almost none are actually even about him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Weak keep per addition of sources; there is a newspaper article explicitly aout him. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, delete. This is a delightful slice of Americana (Kaminocana?) is not encyclopedic and has no references to support its inclusion. ^Bongo_matic 07:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worth chiming in after the addition of a very local interest story claimed as significant coverage in reliable sources. Possibly adequate for verifiability (I will not take swipes and Long Beach, I will not take swipes at Long Beach), but not for notability. ^Bongo_matic 03:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Ten Pund Hammer - *"Strong delete Sources just don't cut it; almost none are actually even about him."

As I am newer to Wiki, I cannot figure out how to send a message to your talk page, so I am opening up the discussion here, as I have already addressed this issue with all the other Wikipedia experts who expressed similar doubts here on this page directly to their talk pages & have found their responses to be extremely helpful.

Please review what you are stating prior to going with the flow. This is NOT a strong delete candidate. You are misinformed: ALL sources cited are specifically about him, every single one. A multitude of 3rd party sources - print, broadcast & online - are cited, as well as additional resources added as a result. I have appealed to the other Wikipedia experts here, and do not feel as though I should have to continually explain the verifiability of Boba Phat. He is considered an "A-List cosplayer" (yes I can send you the link that referred to him as that, but they were simply 2 drunk cosplayer girls in a YouTube video - although they ARE fans of country music, if that helps my argument any). Regardless. Please review the sources particularly the 3rd party media references I recently added on Boba Phat's page before jumping on the "strong delete" bandwagon. There are a lot of people who deserve notoriety, even though they are popular among a niche group (Lee Hazlewood? Boyd Rice??) I urge you to reconsider the "strong delete" tag upon further review & understand that there WILL be additional media coverage of Boba Phat in the near future based on articles/photos he has done for additional objective 3rd party media sources, such as Star Wars Insider. Short of literally listing every resource, please refer to the Boba Phat article & check each reference to discover his notability. Additionally, Google Boba Phat, and you will see that even without Wikipedia, he occupies a minimum of 7 of the top 10 organic links. I am tempted to whack you with a trout, but around my part we don't use Minnows or Trouts, and unfortunately I don't have any Big Mouth Bass handy.

Very Best,

Shannon SheighZam (talk) 10:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. After carefully reviewing the sources, I believe that the Press-Telegram article and the the other sources are just sufficient for this to meet WP:GNG. IronGargoyle (talk) 12:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable. Suggest wp:snow close Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment wp:snow? Are you serious? "The snowball clause is not policy" - Obviously there is VALIDITY for open discussion on the issue at hand. Your opinion without support is unwarranted, and obviously there is enough justifiable resourcing to leave the debate open to the masses. Additionally, your reference to wp:snow is completely off-base. SheighZam (talk) 05:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep : There is sufficient sources coverage. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agree with argument posed by User:Drmies above. Not enough to meet WP:ENT in the least. The single reference to the Long Beach Telegram article is insufficient and few other news articles contain more than a fleeting reference. -- Samir 06:48, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ~~Well, Samir, it's obvious you have something brown on your nose after reading Hell in a Bucket's talk page, regardless,~~ if there's any criteria Boba Phat DOES meet most it's specifically WP:ENT. Read what you quote carefully: "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." His ingenuity at cosplay creation has already inspired numerous "spin-offs". (see http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=26846&st=0&p=199269&#entry199269 re: Halloween costume concept). He meets BOTH of those criteria, unquestionably.SheighZam (talk) 08:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Something brown on my nose? Aren't you a pleasant person -- Samir 12:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No harm done by sparing this well cited little article. As for notoriety Bobba Phat seems to pass the Google test with 25400 hits. That's only 2K less than the 27400 for Sonny Lester. Besides that, Deletionists got no soul.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has anyone bothered to view the references? It's true that it's hard given the number of them. So here's a rundown of references by number as of this revision:
1. YouTube. Personal video (not an upload of material from RS).
2. Sign-on San Diego. ~~Not necessarily RS in the first place.~~ No detail on subject other than (a) misspelling moniker; and (b) detailing outfit. Not "significant coverage".
3. BuzzFeed. Blog aggregator, not RS.
4. Craig Ferguson Show. Mentioned by guest for 8 seconds (starts at 6:28).
5. Facebook blog post. Not RS.
6. twitpic. Not RS.
7. YouTube. Personal video (not an upload of material from RS).
8. YouTube. Personal video (not an upload of material from RS).
9. YouTube. Personal video (not an upload of material from RS).
10. MetroMix YouTube video. Not RS (also, no commentary or coverage about subject).
11. Flickr video. Personal video (not an upload of material from RS).*#
12. Crashing the Con. Documentary in which subject purportedly featured. No suggestion how much, not likely RS (check it out on IMDb for details).
13. Picture in LA Weekly with no narrative beyond caption (which does have an exclamation point, though). Not significant coverage.
14. Publishers Weekly. No mention of subject.
15. Guardian. No mention of subject.
16. Fox 5. Images (nos 19 24) without caption, not significant coverage.
17. Fox 5. Images (nos 19 24) without caption, not significant coverage.
18. MetroMix (same as #10). Not RS (also, no commentary or coverage about subject).
19. MetroMix. Subject on screen less than one second. Not significant coverage, not RS.
20. MetroMix YouTube video. Subject on screen 1 second (at 0:34). Not significant coverage, not RS.
21. Starwars.com website. Subject not mentioned.
22. Press-Telegram Article. My views stated above.
23. 562 City Life, picture only. Not significant coverage, not RS.
24. Daily Titan (college newspaper). Picture without any mention in article, no coverage in video. Not significant coverage, not RS.

There is nothing here that comes close to establishing encyclopedic notability. ^Bongo_matic 14:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with the above editor as there is nothing that features him as a "notable" person. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment::Below is a concise explanation of RS importance of the above mentioned references -

YouTube Video is illustration of popular meme that was uploaded & rapidly spread after one of Boba Phat's first appearances
The San Diego Union-Tribune (website: Signonsandiego.com) is a 4-time Pullitzer Prize-winning publication with its own Wikipedia page RS as it is the official newspaper of San Diego, just as the Long Beach Press Telegram is for Long Beach. The ENTIRE article is about Boba Phat as well; if you consider the LBPT as RS, there is no DOUBT this constitutes as well.
BuzzFeed I concur is Blog aggregator, however expresses him internet meme status
Craig Ferguson clip is a direct mention about Boba Phat from Kristen Bell, star of Fanboys, a hugely successful Star Wars movie, as she is a major celebrity to be mentioning him on a live talk show. He is the ONLY cosplayer she voluntarily mentions.
Facebook post is link to J. Scott Campbell (extremely famous Marvel comic book artist) who references Boba Phat as his favorite cosplayer of all.
Twitpic is photo taken firsthand & posted by Jane Wiedlin of The Go-Go's (the Go-Go's should need no explanation). Note spelling of Boba Phat is accurate as his recognized moniker.
The YouTube Video(s) are uploaded by Jeff Gritchen, who is the staff photographer for the Long Beach Press-Telegram, which is the one source you DO deem as RS, as indicated on http://www.insidesocal.com/modernmyth/2009/10/its-stan-lee-day.html (scroll down for attribution)
Metromix is a NATIONALLY recognized news organization with reports in all MAJOR cities and massive coverage. Metromix is a joint venture between newspaper publishers Tribune Co. and Gannett, and has its own Wikipedia page and definitely meets RS requirements.
Metromix - The ENTIRE 1:20 video interview is about Boba Phat, NOT 1 second clips. Though there ARE 2 additional Metromix videos that do represent him for several seconds, he is the feature of this video & commentary is COMPLETELY 100% about him.
FLICKR video is by newsreporter at Vuze.com (formerly Azureus) which is a free BitTorrent client used to transfer files via the BitTorrent protocol, and also has it's own Wikipedia page expressing its RS.
"Crashing the Con" has a >15 minute long interview with Boba Phat, and is available for purchase through Amazon. According to director Doug Thigpen, Boba Phat is one of the v=favorite characters (which can beseen in a clip on the cite's web page & commentary on the YouTube trailer).
LA Weekly article speaks for itself. CLEARLY RS - owned by Village Voice and admits he is the paper's "Perennial Favorite Cosplayer" which says a LOT given the paper's distribution & coverage.
Publisher's Weekly & Guardian are cited to quote size of attendees at San Diego Convention to express how much of an impact 1 mere character has on a convention with between 125,000-140,000 attendees. Citation was included as necessity for validity of numbers.
Both Fox 5 images are an example of how important they deemed Boba Phat to feature him in 2 out of just 30 impages of the 125,000-140,000 attendees at the convention. Fox Broadcasting has indisputable RS value.
StarWars.com website is a link to the interview he participated in for the upcoming Lucasfilm documentary. There is no footage available about ANY of the characters yet, as film is in preproduction. Included as a resource to express his upcoming movie appearance, however I can see where this may question RS. However until George Lucas permits the rights to be released, that is what can be uploaded to a public forum like Wikipedia.
562 City Life photo is expression of Boba's notoriety by name - though "Phat" is correct, they do spell Boba as Bobba (sic). I could also have uploaded (& plan to a photo from the LBPost.com, which too mentions the subject by name & is an RS source but have yet to get a hard copy other than what is online).
The Daily Titan DOES mention Boba Phat by name under photo, again expressing his recognition by moniker. The only other photos of the convention included in the publication were of world famous artists such as Stan Lee, Jim Lee, Jeph Loewb, J. Scott Campbell, and Darick Robertson. Not bad company for a "simple, non-notable" cosplayer.

Finally, until I have a hard copy of the LBPost article, I can offer this: http://www.lbpost.com/ryan/6755 where Boba Phat is featured n the last photo. As I do not live near Long Beach, I have not had the opportunity to pick up the hard copy, but if I do & he is mentioned more than that terrific picture, I will be sure to include. Hopefully this long list extensively expressed WHY the above desreve notoriety & are worthy of reconsideration. Thanks again for the reconsideration, and please take the above into account. Boba Phat is quite a bit more notable than MANY articles already listed on Wikipedia with substantially less media coverage or following.

SheighZam (talk) 15:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What you are missing is that the articles aren't about him. They are about the various conventions he goes to. He has a novel costume, but in the end he is only an example of that convention....Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The articles & photos ARE about him, specifically. Only 2 quotes (the ones that cite the attendee number of SDCC) are referenced because it is proper etiquette to cite any numerical figure, thus they must be included so that I can back up my facts statistically. Perhaps the StarWars.com link is inconclusive because I cannot disclose any more than what George Lucas has allowed into the public realm without significant legal ramifications. Also, Boba Phat does not do certain conventions - New York, Baltimore, Ohio.... there will not be mentions of him there because he does not participate in those. The articles above all find him significant enough in one way or another to feature him in what they deem as newsworthy to promote/sell their publicity &, like any typical publication, increase their ratings. The reason for this is because of his notoriety at the above-mentioned conventions. In the upcoming year there will be several new conventions, just as this past Long Beach Convention was its inauguration, there will be another in Anaheim. Star Wars Celebration V won't occur until 2010 where he was legendary at SW IV) so until Anaheim in March, SDCC in July, and any other convention that appears within the near future, as well as the release of the Lucasfilm & "Star Wars: Uncut" movies, there may be a gap in time between articles. It's not like he wears the Boba suit to the bank, although that may be pretty funny. I only included articles that have specific photos or news mentions of him. There are COUNTLESS articles about San Diego Comic Con, Wizard World, The Star Wars Concert Series, Star Wars Celebrations, the newer, smaller conventions. Please note that NONE of those are referenced - only articles that depict Boba Phat in some way are cited. SheighZam (talk) 16:58, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on similar comments and threshold-meeting references. - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 16:44, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Wikipedia is better off with Boba Phat than without. Some of the references are sketchy, but in total I think its sufficient to find notability.--Milowent (talk) 20:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bongo's assessment of the sources is spot on, shows a distinct lack of notability. Kevin (talk) 22:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Sigh. There seem to be factions on Wiki and I dislike this. Under no circumstances should there ever be groupations on Wiki whose similar ideology and agendas could sway or influence votes. I am too new yet to really understand these things on here. Re. this article; I don't like it, honestly. I do not see its importance. There is a dork dressed up in a suit that news finds cute and makes it an integral part (or a part) of their Con coverage. How is this significant info for generations to come? It's not. The only goal I can imagine is for future someone may wish to pay this person to attend or they may have some other form of monetary gain from article on here. Now, on the other hand, there is coverage, and there are sources. The problem is when there are marginal articles like this, each editor must objectively try to ascertain whether or not sources are significant per guidelines or not. Sheer amount of sources in this case indicate 51% yes (at least to me). If certain groups vote "delete" collectively (especially if they are experienced and intelligent), that subtly influences the decision each editor must reach and is plainly unfair. Turqoise127 (talk) 23:30, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Though you lean toward weak keep, please note that your opinion of the subject matter as "a dork dressed up in a suit that news find cute & makes and integral part of their Con coverage" is precisely what makes him attractive to that community. Rather than expressing that he is a dork in a suit, he happens to be a rather unique individual DRESSED UP AS A DORK in a suit, albeit a creative approach to an old, used idea. He brings originality. Similar in many ways to a Sports Team mascot yet for the increasingly massive Cosplay, Star Wars & Comic Books scene. And to be clear, under NO circumstances CAN or WILL money be made from his appearances - this is strictly prohibited by George Lucas et al. As far as the rest of your reasons for keep, I 100% agree. Wikipedia is nice that it allows for opinions to be debated, and also is known for introducing up & coming characters that may have - or in this case - already have had a major impact on news coverage within a niche scene. I do believe that you are spot on with your claim that "each editor must objectively try to ascertain whether or not sources are significant per guidelines or not. Sheer amount of sources in this case indicate 51% yes (at least to me). If certain groups vote "delete" collectively (especially if they are experienced and intelligent), that subtly influences the decision each editor must reach and is plainly unfair." Thus the debate seems quite one-sided to me, as he has already been declared newsworthy & notable among several types of media. SheighZam (talk) 04:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep For better or worse, this is in practice the sort of topic that people expect Wikipedia to cover. We've managed to eliminate some articles on similar topics by using BLP, but it won't work for a fictional character. It meets the technical GNG guidelines, which , for those who would prefer to have us be more selective, might be taken to show their increasing uselessness. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

=COMMENT ON VOTES= There is I believe 4 deletes remaining and 6 keep votes. Sorry but the votes were getting confusing so please double check and refactor my number on this comment with my permission. I have no intentions of reversing my vote at this time but a few more consecutive keep votes might warrant a snow close.Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hehehe, aren't you sorry now that you said that? :-) Viriditas (talk) 08:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT RE: "double check and refactor my number on this comment with my permission" as per Hell In A Bucket, Tally is as follows:

Keep (9 - NOT including myself and the 2 votes deemed questionable by Viriditas): Vyvyan Basterd, Ten Pound Hammer, IronGargoyle, Cyclopia, R.D.H. (Ghost in the Machine), CobaltBlueTony, Milowent, Turquoise127, DGG, Casliber. Again, I DID NOT include myself, Daxst16 or SavetheRobots80 based on Viriditas's comment, however I do believe all 3 SHOULD be countable). Regardless, for Delete (6): Apoc2400, Drmies, Bongomatic, Hell in a Bucket, Samir & Kevin. Presently WITHOUT the inclusion of 3 (I believe, justifiable) KEEP votes, the tally as it stands is 9-6 in favor of KEEP. Tally taken at the time following my signature SheighZam (talk) 11:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep From first hand recognition of this character at conventions, I have personally witnessed how both media and celebrities alike bombard Boba Phat for pictures and autographs. I find the citations lean more towards notability, it is my own personal experience- having witnessed Boba Phat's charismatic influence, that leads me to believe that this article is a keeper. Daxst16 (talk) 04:44, 15 October 2009 (UTC) — Daxst16 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

This is interesting a new account with a first edit at an afd?!? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, which guideline on notability provides that notability is demonstrated by "the public requesting pictures and autographs"? ^Bongo_matic 04:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've been a reader of articles of wikipedia for some time, but have never had an interest in commenting on a particular article until following this one closely. I'm familiar with the way this site works since I work at a search engine optimization company, but have never felt the need to activate a standpoint. In this case I've specified that I find the citation leaning towards notability. It is my first hand experience that created my desire to comment upon how that notability is worthy of consideration. 98.64.75.220 (talk) 05:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC) — 98.64.75.220 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep RS Citations speak for themselves. Supports notability of the article's subject.Savetherobots80 (talk) 05:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Come on, we're not stupid. One editor, one vote. The Costa Mesa contribution in your edit history sort of gives you away, you know? Play fair, and you'll be treated fair. There's no need for this. Viriditas (talk) 08:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This confuses me.... how does an editor who has not commented on either of my articles in the past happen to be attributed to having more than one vote? When I made the error of adding KEEP several times, it was pointed out to me that this is not how things work on here, thus I have refrained from doing that once the error of my ways was clarified. However simply because somebody supports this article while having clearly had no contribution whatsoever to the article in the past confuses me as to why you would think there was more than one vote attributed to that editor. Furthermore, your reply to Hell In A Bucket makes it appear as though you are accusing ME of adding additional votes. i believe that the amount of unrelated people who support the KEEP standpoint versus those opting for DELETION have less internal factionalism than the other way around. Please clarify. SheighZam (talk) 09:12, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I struck out my comments. Since you're new, my comments can be used as a teaching example: They are an example of assuming bad faith rather than good faith. However, Daxst16 (talk · contribs) was created to vote in this AfD and Savetherobots80 (talk · contribs) has a total of 21 edits and his account has been "sleeping" since May. Don't mind me. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for 15 minutes at least. Sourced :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 10:23, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Editor Shaigzam, please quit while you are ahead. I once over-defended an article and bludgeoned every commenter like you are now doing. It did not do me much good and I regret it. If I see more suspicious brand-spanking new editors voting with no history otherwise I will be changing my vote. And what is this vote counting anyways? We dont count votes?! We consider arguments. Turqoise127 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do however act oin a consensus and if it doesn't have a snow ball chance in hell we close. That being said it was getting confused because everytime Shiegh was posting it came with an additonal keep so I was trying to clear the waters. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:37, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - not bludgeoning anyone as you suggest, Turquoise127; merely stating facts that I believe are pertinent. I am sorry if in your case you ended up regretting your plight, perhaps I will end up in the same boat; perhaps not. As for VOTES, I merely responded to Hell in a Bucket's =COMMENT ON VOTES=. I understand consensus, but as the word VOTE was issued, I opted to follow the wording of someone who has been around here longer than me. As far as your changing your ~~vote~~ opinion if "brand-spanking new editors" arise, that's out of my hands. It appears as though one had already been on here from even before I registered. As far as the other, perhaps they were incited to respond as I was the first time I noticed an article that aggravated me enough to activate a Wiki account & get started (a misspelling on Blowfly's Punk Rock Party article). Threatening me with a vote change as though I am responsible for this seems a bit counterproductive, as it has absolutely nothing to do with the notability issue at hand. That said, I will continue to make arguments worthy of consideration, as it IS consensus based on arguments, exactly as you stated. As per my obvious confusion about the multiple "keeps", I removed them to avoid the confusion so that Hell in a Bucket could establish a more credible tally as he stated (and I quote): "please double check and refactor my number on this comment with my permission". So I did. SheighZam (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Upper Grand District School Board. If someone wants to merge, go ahead, but I don't see much to merge at the moment. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rickson Ridge P.S

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

No indications that this school meets notability guidelines. Actually, most public schools does not. --JForget 16:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Upper Grand District School Board, as was done for Kortright Hills Public School --Milowent (talk) 16:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The school currently has one of the best Symphonic bands in the area and its athletes are top of the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drseussiscool (talk • contribs) 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt your school is quite rad, drseuss, but we don't include schools lower than high school level on wikipedia unless notability (through newspaper articles, etc.) can be shown.--Milowent (talk) 12:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Upper Grand District School Board per usual practice. TerriersFan (talk) 17:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Upper Grand District School Board per the standard way of treating schools with no significant independent notability outside the local area. Thryduulf (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 20:33, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Reaume

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

deletion rationale: As a non-professional development driver, he has not received the recognition needed to meet WP:ATHLETE. Sources provided are not sufficient to meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Contested PROD. 66.57.4.150 (talk) 14:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

(Finishing nom for unregistered editor. No opinion (yet) on deletion.) Fabrictramp | talk to me 15:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Keep, subject of article meets general notability guidelines, but not by much, with additional references could be changed to KEEP, but I can understand why this doesn't meet WP:ATHLETE. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote due to delete, due to further review, and not meeting part 1 of basic criteria. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:09, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added additional references. Take a look and tell me what you think. This should give some more credibility with regards to the WP:ATHLETE. --(talk) 7:31pm Oct 12, 2009. —Preceding undated comment added 02:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak Keep - just meets WP:GNG. The article needs a re-write, fix the tone and style. Crafty (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Delete per those below. Crafty (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How does the article show that GNG has been meet? The refs list his name - nothing else. No significant coverage has been provided ("sources a008-01-24ddress the subject directly in detail"). 66.57.4.150 (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't if one actually reads WP:GNG. Frankly it's rather inconvenient of you to point that out. Crafty (talk) 05:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and encourage those arguing to keep to recheck the sources. The six "reference" sources have literally no more mention of him than his name in a list. Of the external links, one is his self-published website, the second doesn't even mention his name, and the third had a directory entry. The general notability guideline requires not only that there be a good number of sources, but that those sources be substantive. There's nothing substantive here. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep The entry is constantly undergoing improvement. Talk to me 00:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)— thisiswar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete He's only a local driver at this point who competes at one of the many NASCAR-sanctioned local tracks throughout the United States. It would be different if he were a developmental driver for a NASCAR Cup team, but he's not according to the article. Royal broil 01:44, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:56, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sumeriancore

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

Recently created neologism, with does not appear notable yet (only one reference of use by a single critic). Singularity42 (talk) 16:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Neologism from non-reliable source, with a hint of promotion. Drmies (talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn with fire and salt yet another word made up by a bored teen UltraMagnus^speak 20:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep. its sourced so it stays. 76.220.195.8 (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourced does not make it notable. Singularity42 (talk) 12:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This genre is REAL! Its making an impact in the metal scene across the US and Europe. If the people fighting for the relevancy of this Article even knew a hint about the metal scene AT ALL, They would know that the bands on Sumerian Records are the new wave of Metal and Hardcore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitonpyh (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- show us some reliable sources that assert notability--UltraMagnus^speak 20:54, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources you asked for them and here there are. Everything from Metal news sites, to forums, to Barnes and Noble reviews.

MetalSucks - Enfold Darkness joins Sumeriancore Last.fm - Sumeriancore Is my band Sumeriancore? Barnes & Noble Sumeriancore Review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitonpyh (talk • contribs) 21:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- not sure if the first one is a blog, may just scrape as as wp:rs. second one is just user contributed tags, and third one is just a forum, both fail wp:rs. not sure what you are getting at with the last one, its just a review of a single CD.--UltraMagnus^speak 10:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Sucks is one of the largest Metal / Hardcore news websites on the net, the last.fm and the forum are just showing that this isn't some made up nonsense and people actually use this word, and the review is from a large reviewer that has makes it in magazines etc. The Metal Sucks source & Review does not fail the wp:rs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kitonpyh (talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus seems to be that notability and copyright concerns have been adequately addressed. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:41, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WoWWiki

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

The article was previously converted to a redirect per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/WoWWiki (third nomination) in November 2006.

Content revised content still fails WP:NN and WP:WEB. The current author claims when copying content from http://www.wowwiki.com/WoWWiki:About that "this site has grown considerably since the previous RfD, and this page is done better since" - however the article only contains refs to primary sources, and is more poorly sourced than the previously AfD'd version of the article, which can be found archived here. - Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A quick look at google news reveals almost zero coverage of the WoWWiki. It doesn't seem to have obtained notable coverage. Due to this lack of coverage, it seems to fail WP:N, and so I have to suggest deletion. Basket of Puppies 16:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – scarcely notable. ╟─Treasury Tag►Not-content─╢ 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt for lack of third-party coverage, not even worthy of a redirect. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Keep per sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete and protect~~ Keep I'm impressed with the improvements and the coverage found. A little insignificant ^{Talk to me!} _{(I have candy!)} 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Just as notable as Lostpedia, Wookiepedia, and Memory Alpha, all of which have their own articles and are just large wikis based around a particular fandom. More sources can be gotten if time is given instead of just quick deletion. Hooper (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article. Tan | 39 17:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OTHERSTUFFEXISTS means that just because other articles exist, doesn't mean they should exist. In this case, the Wookiepedia and Memory Alpha articles surely should exist. Try not to misuse OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Here, the argument is rather that WoWWiki is not as notable as those wikis. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Surely should exist". Subjective. My argument is valid; one needs to put forth the merits of this particular site, not simply state that other similar sites have articles. Try not to be condescending - and wrong. Tan | 39 22:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I see no indication this site meets the notability requirements set forth in WP:WEB. If there are sources available, as mentioned above, then they need to be found and posted. Simply claiming they can be obtained is not enough. Tan | 39 17:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After review of the below "sources", my delete !vote stands. I urge anyone new to this discussion to go through the list in its entirety, and look at what these "sources" actually are - mostly blog entries and trivial mentions. I mean nothing personal to anyone here, but people should not look at a long list of purported sources and take it as gospel that notability exists. Tan | 39 16:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yet another update: Changing !vote to keep based on the JBT source. Hard to argue with that one; that it originated from my alma mater doesn't hurt. Thanks to Protonk for supplying it. Tan | 39 17:40, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect it to the main World of Warcraft page, and protect it if necessary to prevent undoing of the re-direct. Wowwiki is a direct link at the bottom of that page, so a redirect there would make some sense. And, quite frankly, you might have some gamers who would look it up, better that it be a re-direct to a viable article than just a red-link. Oh, and lok'tar ogar. Umbralcorax (talk) 17:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lok'tar it is. Based on the sources provided below, Keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources. Hooper has been around long enough to know that this is not a vote and all the "strong keep"s in the world can't save an article without reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 18:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per many above. Does not have reliable sources to support general notability. Andre (talk) 19:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hammer. Drmies (talk) 19:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are not prepared (delete) - Creating an article without good third-party sources is like creating a party without a tank and healer; Until one comes along, you ain't going nowhere. You can prepare for the journey outside of the instance (by creating a draft in User: space). Nifboy (talk) 19:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out I have a DK so I just soloed that instance. What now? :P Protonk (talk) 18:06, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - OMG OP NERF NERF NERF (someone remind me why I rolled priest?) Nifboy (talk) 22:55, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Userfy until a time where better sources can be established. Don't salt. Why is there a need to salt? Concensus on previous XfDs has been varied to say the least... I wouldn't redirect it though, as it is not covered elsewhere. No point redirecting it to an article because it has an external link to redirect you to somewhere else to learn about it. --Taelus (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Struck. Userfying isn't even needed, it seems sources have been found now for this 4th nom! Excellent work. Keep. --Taelus (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep There are few sources that have details such as [10] and [11] but I'm not sure I see enough here for a separate article at this time. It might make sense to make a list of marginally notable Wikia's wikis about pop subjects. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Changing to full keep per additional sourcing tracked down by Odie. JoshuaZ (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - At best this should be under the External Links section of the World of Warcraft article. It's not notable enough on it's own, even if sources could have been found. --Teancum (talk) 20:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"even if sources could have been found" sounds like WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: Reliable sources:

PC World article (mirror: [12])
Proceedings of the 2008 ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on Video games contains more than just trivial coverage
"Genre, Activity, and Collaborative Work and Play in World of Warcraft" appears in Journal of Business and Technical Communication, is an extremely in-depth article about WoWWiki and its dynamics as a community tool for WoW players
Emergence, game rules and players compares the short rule set of Chess to the lengthy rule set of WoW as documented by WoWWiki.
"Audience, authorship, and artifact: The emergent semiotics of web 2.0" appearing in the Annual Review of Applied Linguistics acknowledges WoWWiki as one of the largest wikis
Many other journal articles refer to WoWWiki articles for their coverage of UI programming API, patch mirroring, coverage of the Leeroy Jenkins video, and WoW class descriptions. It is frequently used as a reference for information on WoW's in-game environment.
GamesRadar refers users to WoWWiki in case they have any questions in their tutorial on WoW
Joystiq and Massively cover a "How Gamers Are Adopting the Wiki Way" panel which focused on WoWWiki
[13] "The best-known MMO wiki has to be WoWWiki"
[14] "For all-round, general info, WoWWiki should be your first stop."
[15] "the mother of all WoW informational sources, WoWWiki."
Wikia turns a profit, thanks in part to WoWWiki
If you don't have access to one of the articles, or still need more WP:RS, let me know.

--Odie5533 (talk) 21:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't really consider academic papers to be suitable in this context because, as you said, they refer to the subject and are not about the subject itself. That rules out bullets #2-6. Bullets #8-12 are blog posts and not actual news articles. Bullet #7 again only refers to the subject and is not directly about the subject. That leaves bullet #1 which I'm still deciding on. Tuxide (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My comment about referring to the subject was aimed at the journal articles which I did not post here. All the ones here do more than just refer to the site. For instance, the article in J. Bus. Tech. Comm. gives a long-winded discussion on WoWWiki. You seem to be grouping all the references together as though they are all the in some type of non-notable category. I implore you to look at each reference and decide whether or not it constitutes a reliable source supporting the notability of the subject. --Odie5533 (talk) 23:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not even going to bother because even if that was the case, it is still original research. I tend to be cautious over the use of academic papers on Wikipedia for this reason. There are some cases where it is clearly appropriate to use them, such as Nash equilibrium, and WoWWiki is not one of them. Tuxide (talk) 00:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can make up your own rules on the use of sources, but don't expect the rest of us to agree. Not bothering to look at sources is bizarre, and you seem to not understand what original research means in the context of Wikipedia - authors of sources are of course allowed to engage in thewir own research; it is Wikipedia editors who can't do so. If the article is deemed to be premature, I suggest the Article Incubator as an alternative to deletion. Fences&Windows 01:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Academic papers are just another form of primary sources. I'm more interested in secondary sources; although primary sources can be used to verify points in the article, they cannot be used to establish notability. Tuxide (talk) 01:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? I think you need to read up on WP:Primary sources, academic papers does not in general fit. Taemyr (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course academic papers are good secondary sources that help confirm notability - more so than random newspaper articles, there's certainly a lot more work put into them and they're generally peer-reviewed as well. As Taemyr points out, academic articles are not what the no primary sources thing in WP is about. --Lijil (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Staying with delete and recommending that people check the sources, many of which don't even seem to mention the article subject. I don't see any non-trivial coverage of the site itself as a distinct entity. Using these sources we can prove it exists, which was not in doubt, but its significance remains entirely unproven from those sources. Setting up a wiki is trivially easy, so evidence of significance is unquestionably required here as we are not a directory of websites. Guy (Help!) 09:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guy we know you may have a infamous history of making a stance before having all the information, so I suggest you actually look at the sources before making claims that aren't true about them - as many are directly about the site and showcase its notability and widespread use in that community. Hooper (talk) 12:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Co-nomination To clarify, this is the version I nominated three years ago, not the one linked to in the nom. As it stands, the current version is even less-compliant to WP:RS than the older one. This should've remained in user space until it was mature and noteworthy enough to be brought back in article space again. Tuxide (talk) 22:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles don't start out at FA quality; they are worked on from stub and start where they don't necessarily use lots of WP:RS's. I don't think non-FA articles should be deleted because they are not FA; a very small Wikipedia would result. --Odie5533 (talk) 22:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not making a generalization. This article was moved from article namespace to user namespace as a result of the last AFD and that is where it should be now. Tuxide (talk) 22:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Odie5533's sources are actually pretty good, so keep. Just don't forget to use the sources to write the article. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. WoWWiki is discussed 5 times in ACM articles (some of which were linked above) and 71 times in scholarly articles listed on Google Scholar, which is pretty impressive for a popular culture website. If it's notable enough to be mentioned in that many academic articles, I'd say it's notable enough that people reading those articles should be able to come and find out more about it on the Wikipedia. --Lijil (talk) 21:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - More references added. Hooper (talk) 23:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete and Block page Creation Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Aside from the fact that WoW itself has no value, the WoWWiki is also severly lacking in EV. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, in the greater scheme of things, no one cares what you like. The keep arguments I am seeing also do not address the issues being raised by the delete people. Nezzadar (speak) 02:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually they are being clearly counterpointed, while you're the one on a IDONTLIKEIT soapbox with you anti-WoW stance. If you feel as such you should refrain from talking on pages related to it.Hooper (talk) 02:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Now has more than enough sources, particularly if Odie's are also integrated into the article. BryanG (talk) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong keep. I'm not sure why you think this isn't notable - WoWWiki is very, very often referred to within the Warcraft community and is a well-known website. As for Nezzadar, someone's got a severely anti-Warcraft stance. [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 11:36, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As much as I love using WoWWiki as a resource, it's not a notable website per Wikipedia standards. The sources cited don't really support its notability either, being primarily trivial mentions. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 11:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you should take another look at those sources. They are much more than trivial mentions, and directly showcase its notability. Please look at the sources better before commenting. Hooper (talk) 12:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did. Please WP:AGF.

If you really want me to spell it out for you, though:

[16] is a trivial mention.

Your opinion. It seems not "trivial" at all to me. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you honestly see this as being a significant mention? "Massively" is a blog that is not peer-reviewed in any way. WP:WEB states that we should not use a reference if it is "a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site". As this publication (read: blog entry) mentions WoWWiki once, barely gives it a summary, and simply says it is the most-used of these sorts of things, I can't see how anyone can take this as a significant, reliable source. Tan | 39 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, yes. The entry is brief: but it is not a brief summary, it clearly and extensively says that the site stands out among its own peers mentioned. The same holds for the entry below.

Plus: If we were all basing that on only one source of this kind, I would agree, but one has to see the context (do we expect MMORPG wikis to be the subject of dozens of academic books?) and the number of such sources -which are many. A drop doesn't make a sea, but it's absurd to dismiss the sea as insignificant because it's made of insignificant drops.

Actually if you search for WoWWiki on Google Scholar you'll see it's cited in no less than 71 academic articles. Pretty damn notable if you ask me. --Lijil (talk) 21:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally: There are other much better sources cited above, but the editor avoided to "spell them out", like [17] and the academic articles [18] and [19]. The latter dedicates a whole paragraph to WoWWiki. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Clearly and extensively"? Really? Here is the entire mention from the source: "The best-known MMO wiki has to be WoWWiki, a site with hundreds and hundreds of articles updated by dozens of dedicated users." That's it. No matter how you spin it, this is in no way "extensive". Just because someone in a blog says that something is the "best-known" hardly means that notability is established. As for your sea analogy, as much as I love being compared to absurdity, this might have weight if you had, say, ten thousand sources. Creating a sea out of ten or so questionable sources is ... well, absurd. Tan | 39 16:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are forgetting the non questionable ones that have been posted and that I have re-posted above. :) --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true. All my comments above are directed at this one source. Tan | 39 16:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[20] is a trivial mention.

As above. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- See above comment. Tan | 39 16:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[21] is a primary source, so nothing to establish notability.
[22]... isn't even displaying anything for me in IE 8.

In my browser displays, but admittedly nothing about the wiki. Perhaps the link is wrong? --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[23] is a trivial mention.
[24] is the most extensive, but is basically a report on a panel at a gaming convention involving one of WoWWiki's admins. The panel is about wikis used for gaming in general, not WoWWiki in particular; however, this is about the best coverage we've seen so far.
[25] is about the same panel at the same convention. It's even more about wikis in general, and barely gives WoWWiki a mention in the beginning.

So, out of all the stuff in the article, there's one questionable source that could confer notability. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Odie5533. More comment later, but sourcing is more than adequate. Protonk (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- An update. References added, text cleaned up, and rescue tag placed. Anyone who states that sourcing is only trivial simply hasn't read this article. Period. Other sources cover the subject to varying degrees. The panel discussions probably mentioned WoWWiki in great detail, but we can't (absent some video recording) verify this completely. The PC World article looks supiciously like a press release, but the massively and RWW articles are fine. They cover the subject, explain the significance and provide context. This is what we need in order to write an article that is compliant w/ NOT/NOR/NPOV. Protonk (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I disagree with the massively and RWW opinion; I can't bring myself to view them as anything but non-peer-reviewed blogs. One step up from my own hackery. In reference to the JBT article, do you have a subscription or access to the article? Can you email it to me? Tan | 39 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - We can probably disagree about RWW and massively. I think they occupy the space between completely reliable and hackery, rather than occupying the 'hackery' space. :) Protonk (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Again, wonderful work of Odie5533 in finding sources. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment re: Copyright issue - as the original nominator, I will say that if the newly found sources (by Odie, above, which need to be worked into the article yet) had been previously attached, I likely wouldn't have nominated this for AfD. My initial search had failed to locate these refs. However, as I mentioned in the nom, the text of the article appears to have been copied straight from WoWWiki (mostly from the "History and background" section - even their citation template "ref web" was copied over, even though the template by the same name here works very differently - for reference, here's the copy to here). As both sites are under CC-BY-SA, this isn't a huge issue ... but the history here should provide proper attribution to the authors on WoWWiki - I'm guessing that a mention in an article summary showing it was copied from there would be enough - but how to work that in after the fact? Is it adequate to put a tag on the talk page (and the edit summary of the talk page addition, in case it gets removed from the talk page later)? I'm hoping it's not necessary to list each contributor from there over here - my guess is that pointing people over there is adequate - but I don't know enough about copyright issues to be certain. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:41, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is some more comment on my talk page, but this is probably a sufficient rewrite to avoid attribution and plagiarism problems. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per improvements and excellent source finding by Odie5533. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep 38 google news hits, 16 google book hits, and most surprisingly10 google scholar hits more than establish notability (unfortunately)--UltraMagnus^speak 20:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on all the sources now listed in there. Its gotten plenty of coverage from reliable sources. Dream Focus 00:34, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In practice, some sorts of topics we cover more exhaustively than others. This is among the ones we do. I think it meets the technical requirements. Personally, this is not the sort of topic I am the least interested in, but that's not the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 03:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UltraMagnus and Dreamfocus, and DGG's analysis as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:04, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Support rewrite (possibly Protonk's). --King Öomie 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditionally Keep, Rewrite, Slippery Slope I entirely admit that I'd be suffering partial WP:IDONTLIKEIT if I said delete, and the article does have some merit. Drop the opinionated quotes at the top that suffer WP:RS, and if just the things left are from the actual research sources or how it relates to the growth of Wikia and the like? Okay. However, keeping this because there's finally "enough" notability besides just an external link open the gates to any other gaming wikia site having a justified main wiki article, since in a lot of cases they could cite same Wikia-related articles. Keep, but then needs a complete re-do by someone entirely unfamiliar with the topic and could make it academically. No matter what, it'll end up here again since it's basically impossible to draw a precise line between when encyclopedia-type factual Wiki can lean into and discuss fictional variants. Rewrite. Facts only. No opinion or praise quotes. Add a link to the main wikia gaming portal site to keep it--er--"gaming politics balanced". Datheisen (talk) 08:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 15:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outline of Texas history

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

This "article" is a collection of very loosely related links that claims to be an overview of the history of Texas. In many cases, the links that are included have nothing to do with the scope of this topic and would not be included in a comprehensive history book on the state. (That makes part of this original research, as the creator chose which links to include based on personal preference, not consensus of reliable sources.) No context is provided for most of these links, leading to potential POV issues, a huge problem with many historical articles. The lack of context is also very confusing - how is a reader to know what any of these links actually mean or tell which ones are important? I'm confused by some of them, and I've been doing extensive work improving articles about Texas history. If this article were to be cleaned up to include only pertinent links with an appropriate amount of context, then it would essentially be a stripped-down version of History of Texas (thus making this article a duplication of content -> a content fork).

In short, I believe this article violates WP:OR (in the choice of which links to include), WP:NPOV (lack of context), WP:FORK (as a content fork if the appropriate links/context were to be icluded), and WP:N, as reliable sources don't focus on "outlines" of topics, but the topic itself. I don't believe this article is salvageable.

I understand that these outlines exist for the histories of the other 49 states; I am not nominating all of them because I am not as familiar with their scope and do not know without some research whether they violate the same criteria I've listed. If others wish to make a determination on some of the others and make this a mass nomination, that's fine with me. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominator. Karanacs (talk) 15:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect this AfD will serve as a test case for Wikipedians' collective view of WP:OUTLINE. Personally, I think the best argument for including an outline on Wikipedia is that it serves a navigational function, to enable encyclopaedia users to find content; essentially, according to this view, the outline serves as a structured "List of articles about the history of Texas".
Personally, I see this as a fairly strong argument. It is built on the established consensus at WP:CLN, and I think outlines could, in time, come to serve as Wikipedia's missing "contents" section, which is something we need badly.
But, a tenable counterargument would be that this outline duplicates the Index of Texas-related articles and is therefore a content fork. My personal take is that it's okay to have both contents and index for navigation, but I'm not completely sure and I'd like to see reasoned arguments from other Wikipedians; I reserve the right to change my mind!—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- My thought is that a Table of Contents for the topic "history of texas" would be the same as the TOC from the History of Texas article; those interested in finer details could read the overview at that article, then, if they were interested, go to the parent article of a particular section, and continue working their way in as deep as they want. This would provide appropriate context for NPOV purposes and for general understanding of the topic more so than any simple collection of random links that might-or might not- have some association with Texas. Karanacs (talk) 17:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ , although a Wikify is suggested. Some products of the outline project are better than others, and this one is in the "others" group. The concept of outlines, as I understand it, is to provide an at-a-glance page that summarizes basic facts and the links to the articles. This one took a wrong turn at Nagodoches, using all the wars fought by the United States as a template. While the role of Texas in the Mexican War and the Civil War is obvious, the concept of Texas in World War I, World War II, etc. is the round peg in a square hole. Mandsford (talk) 13:14, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be possible to criticise this response for focusing on the current state of the article when AfD should be evaluating its potential state. (In other words, the question we should be asking is, "Is it fixable?")—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 14:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix it in user space. The Outline Project strives for excellence, and works in progress don't cut it. Mandsford (talk) 15:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Much though I understand this sentiment, a more conventional view at AfD, per WP:BEFORE, is that if it can be fixed, it should remain in the mainspace while fixing is in progress.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 20:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to Strong delete. The more I think about it, the more I feel that this is not what the Outline Project was supposed to accomplish, which is to provide information in a concise, at-a-glance form. Did somebody decide that Outline of Texas didn't have enough information, and that the solution was that the outline needed needed an outline? Or was it that History of Texas needed to be explained further? The concept of a short, one-page outline of a subject makes sense, and most topics don't need an outline page at all. And if Outline of Texas has grown to the extent that someone thinks that part of it now needs to become another page, then that defeats the whole purpose of having Outline of Texas in the first place. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, fair point. It's an outline of the outline. I'll run with delete on this basis.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is ought to be called List of Texas history articles. However, unless there are red links (for articles still needed), categories do a much better job than lists. If kept, the article should be pruned of events related to the history of USA generally, with few specifically Texas-related issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, redundant to the main outline and the history article. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:41, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Blowfly (artist). The creator and subject of the article has agreed to this. Closed by the nominator, WP:NAC. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 03:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Clit

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

This article does not meet WP:V and thus not WP:BLP. It also fails WP:BIO for the same reasons. The sources listed are not reliable sources showing non-trivial coverage but instead a combination of references to other Wikipedia articles and examples of trivial coverage and non-independent sites. So, delete primarily per WP:V and WP:BLP. It also appears that the creator SheighZam (talk · contribs) has a conflict of interest with regard to this article. If someone can think of a reasonable target to redirect to I'm not entirely opposed to that (though I prefer deletion in this case) but it needs to be discussed first due to the name of this article. Having a redirect point to a BLP that subsequently turns up on Google when someone does a search for "miss clit" is a situation we should consider with great care. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N (non-notable stage name); the person concerned would fail WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE; no reliable secondary sources. Most of the article content is about Blowfly (artist); at most could maybe justify a brief mention in the latter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antipastor (talk • contribs) 17:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking of the category artist when I mentioned WP:CREATIVE, which maybe wouldn't apply here. In any case, the article does not assert notability as a performer/musician. Antipastor (talk) 00:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this poorly written and referenced article on a non-notable performer. I cut a few images from the article--there was enough promotional content in it already. Drmies (talk) 19:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There can be a redirect to Blowfly's Punk Rock Party wikipedia page, however there is no mention of her live performance as Miss Clit on that particular album. As far as notability is concerned, Miss Clit attracts a younger generation of crowds to shows of the inventor of rap music way back in 1965. this is notable in & of itself. Her performance as both a live performer & recording artist had deemed itself worthy by selling out shows. And yes, perhaps it sounds subjective as I am Miss Clit, however I did not write my own wiki; I had an objective fan create it to avoid conflict of interest. The name is sexual in nature, as that is the type of music for which Blowfly is known, and cannot be altered, as that has been the known name of Blowfly's secretary for several decades.

Additionally, as far as WP:Creative, Miss Clit meets the following criteria: **The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.The person's work either (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention. Please advise what else is needed for deletion to be no longer considered, and thank you for taking the time to review.SheighZam (talk) 07:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response As I said, I'm not opposed to a carefully considered redirect. If you merge whatever is needed from this article to the Bowfly article then a redirect is fine but as it stands now it doesn't meet the required standard regarding sourcing. As a consequence of that, it also fails the notability guideline discussed above as well as WP:BLP which is non-negotiable, regardless of whether the article contains negative information or not. You need significant independent coverage by reliable sources. You can't cite Wikipedia in a wikipedia article or use blogs, websites of record labels, reprints of press releases, Youtube etc. I'm just not seeing the required coverage to support an independent article. I'm also not entirely sure that you understand the consequences of having an article here with your pictures in it under the name "Miss Clit". Anyone can edit here and although Wikipedia is not censored (nor do I believe that it ever should be) you should consider if this is really what you want to do. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 07:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum The creator and subject of the BLP has agreed to a redirect or deletion. I'll wait and give her a chance to merge whatever content can and should be merged into the Bowfly article and then redirect it if there are no objections to that solution. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Even some of the users arguing for deletion are admitting that the topic is encyclopedic but the article currently is not. As such, the shortcomings of the list itself, which can be fixed through editing as the keep !votes point out, cannot be a reason for deletion in itself. None of the keep !votes address what the inclusion criteria for such a list should be or whether such criteria are even possible to be thought of. As such, the discussion has not resulted in a consensus on what to do with this article. Further discussion on relevant talk pages is probably needed. Regards So Why 11:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of words having different meanings in Spain and Latin America

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

This is an interesting idea, but has insurmountable problems. First, there are thousands of such words; second, there are 20 countries in Spanish America (and 25 Hispanophone countries in all) with many local variations between them. To give an idea of the scale of the problem, the Spanish - English section of Collins' Spanish dictionary has 602 pages. Opening it at random, on one page (p.478) I count 14 words where distinct Spanish-American meanings are given, some complex - e.g. the noun regalía means privilege, prerogative, perquisite, bonus, but also:

(c) (Ant, CAm, Col) gift, present
(d) (Arg, Cu, Mex) royalty; advance payment
(e) (Ven) excellence, goodness, beauty

There is no possibility that a list like this, short of the size of a dictionary, can ever be anything but a misleading over-simplification. JohnCD (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per JohnCD, there are just way too many of these, and there isn't really a set inclusion criteria. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:57, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because of List of words having different meanings in British and American English: A–L and its fellows. Delete them first, or this is just systemic bias. Nerfari (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(a) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, (b) for the reasons given, the Spanish situation is much more complex, (c) when it comes to language-related articles a systemic bias towards English is reasonable and to be expected in the English-language Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Regretfully, because I think that this would be a good topic if it were given scholarly treatment, but there's no way that I could vote to keep this article. Not only is it unsourced, but the premise of it is pretty much that a word that has one meaning in Spain will have a slang (or more to the point, disgusting) meaning in Argentina. Case in point is the verb "coger", which is said to mean "to take" in Spain, but "to fuck" in Argentina. I suppose I could make the same assumption about the British English verb "do", which as we all know is a dirty word in the United States, right? I mean, if you say that someone is "doing" someone else, we know what that means. Never mind that "to do" generally means the same thing in the U.K. and the U.S., the first description is funnier. It's not a matter of systemic bias; the British-American English article does not take this type of "it's a dirty word over here" approach. Mandsford (talk) 12:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or start over. This is certainly a notable topic and as such one that is worth covering on Wikipedia but this fails both WP:V and any reasonable level of required quality of article content. I'm aware that the latter is not usually a valid deletion rationale but in this case it should be taken into account if the article is not significantly improved. Vyvyan Basterd (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's certainly a notable topic: the differences between versions of Spanish are covered in Spanish dialects and varieties and in several individual articles on Central American Spanish, Canarian Spanish, Caribbean Spanish, Spanish language in the Philippines etc; at present those tend to be mainly about differences of grammar and pronunciation, and there is room for more about differences of vocabulary; but I don't think a list like this is a feasible way to approach it. JohnCD (talk) 16:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mandsford. Sure, there is a topic in here, but I don't think it will be found under this title. Drmies (talk) 19:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sure there are thousands, just like in English, and there are regional differences within South America, just as there are in the US or the UK. Stick to entries which are well referenced. like coger [26]. Just as important with respect to the Spanish language as with respect to the English language. A portion of this is covered in Spanish profanity, but there are non obscene differences, like a "tortilla" being a small cake in Spain, or a Mexican corn flatbread well known in the U.S.[27]. Edison (talk) 19:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I find that there would be some Anglophones who would find this particularly notable. I'd be interested to see if there was an equivalent page on the Spanish wiki... Rennell435 (talk) 11:32, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The closest to an equivalent page on the Spanish language wiki is this: [28]. --Jotamar (talk) 11:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The page you provided is good. I think the English article needs expanding, and if someone who works on both EnWiki and EsWiki were to transcribe it over from the Spanish one, then it might be worthwile saving. However, I think if an Anglophone is really interested in regional Spanish vocab differences, Wikipedia wouldn't really be the first port of call, and definitely not the wisest source to use. It belongs in a dictionary or a book devoted to the subject, and I think that's where most people would look anyway.

Delete. Rennell435 (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Of the thousands of books devoted to Spanish usage (See worldCat and [29] for lists), many are devoted to particular countries or topics, but most make comparisons. Some are devoted primarily to doing that. (The only one I personally know is Cassell's beyond the dictionary in Spanish; a handbook of everyday usage, which I recommend as entertaining as well as informative--it explains key differences country by country. ) DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand-- I don't like the article, but its a start. It's a notable topic and sources are available. --Jmundo (talk) 12:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jmundo. Sole Soul (talk) 15:30, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary, and rebuild as a appendix there. 76.66.194.183 (talk) 12:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn This City

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

Non-notable song... fails WP:NALBUMS/WP:NSONGS... Atticle was prodded, but IP user removed prod... Adolphus79 (talk) 14:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Albums (including singles) are typically notable if the band is notable (per WP:NSONG), (this article is about a single album released last month not a "future song"). However, I was only able to find two references that I thought might pass WP:RS, and going back to the parent article Sonic Syndicate seeing that pretty much all the sources there are from the same website as the two I found, I'm not sure that the band itself is actually notable. I will wait to see if anyone else can dig something up before !voting. DigitalC (talk) 15:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It's studio albums only that can be considered notable if the band is, not singles or EPs. They have their own separate criteria, charting being the most common. Rehevkor ✉ 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The only sources I found for this single/album were not reliable. In fact, I doubt the notability of the band. If there are no reliable sources for an article, it should not exist. DigitalC (talk) 16:55, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I'm sorry, you're right, the "physical version" has not been released yet... "future" has been removed from my rational... as far as your comments on the band's notability, I share your thoughts... I prodded all their singles and demo albums because there was no signs of them passing WP:NALBUMS/WP:NSONGS, but two of the album articles claim they have made it onto some national chart, which passes WP:NALBUMS... each of the member's articles have also been removed because they did not pass WP:MUSICBIO... The band's article, and 2 of the albums are about all I can find that even come close to passing notability concerns, but I have not done any heavy research to confirm the claims of the articles... If you do decide to do said research and take the band (or the 2 albums that claim to have charted) itself to AfD, please leave me a note... The creator/primary editor of a lot of these articles (Simonpettersen (talk · contribs)) has a pretty long history of creating articles for non-notable bands and their albums, and uploading images without any licensing information... As much as I hate to do it, I had to pretty much go back through his entire contribution history and tag most of it for deletion after I came across this... I am still AGF'ng this user, and am trying to help him better understand policy (zero replies to anything written on his talk page), but for now am keeping a close eye on his contributions... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:17, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: As far as I can tell, a physical version has been released. A single with 2 versions of this song, and one other song on it. I will likely be starting a thread at WP:RSN regarding a source used many times on the bands article which I believe fails WP:RS. DigitalC (talk) 20:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The band do pass WP:BAND#C5 at least, having released 3 records on a major record label - but the article does need improving. Rehevkor ✉ 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails to pass WP:NSONG and probably never will. Rehevkor ✉ 12:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Digital C--the band is plenty notable per our guidelines, since they have two (soon three) albums on Nuclear Blast. But this song is not notable in its own right, and not just because it sucks (if you'll pardon my POV). Drmies (talk) 19:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee's Marketplace

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

No non-trivial source coverage. Tagged for notability, sources, etc. since 9/08 with no improvement. Only sources are primary or trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 03:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. There are passing mentions, such as this article from USA Today and this article from Deseret News. These articles are about a robot test that was done at Lee's Marketplace, but this does not establish any notability. A search through Google Books also returns no substantial results. Cunard (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Relisted for final time. JForget 15:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cunard. No RSes that I can find, either. Tim Song (talk) 12:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A7 Tone 15:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Sigma chapter of Alpha Phi Delta

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

Most of the article is non-encyclopedic, to say the least; it amounts to little more than vandalism. What little possibly encyclopedic content there is has no established notability or references. Auntof6 (talk) 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete A7. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I'm gathering that this was supposed to be funny. Yeah, LOL, whatever. Mandsford (talk) 14:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ramë Bllaca

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

This article has been a contested prod while listed at Pages needing translation for lack of notability, and has also been tagged for speedy deletion during that period. Now, the two weeks grace period for a translation are over, and the translation hasn't even begun. Delete unless someone can do the translation and show notability. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I wish that not-English was a speedy delete reason. Not useful in en.wikipedia. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 13:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. He would appear to be an Albanian (or Kosovar) folk musician. Google news shows there's a primary school in Kosovo named after him. Perhaps somebody at Wikipedia:WikiProject Kosovo could lend a hand? Anybody know how best to send a notice to see if they think this is suitable/salvageable? [Editing to add link, having seen "news.google.com" didn't turn it up, but "news.google.co.uk" did] --Paularblaster (talk) 22:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kosovo. Hopefully, someone's paying attention. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:32, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the note. kedadial 07:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This name is not even notable in the Albanian language or I as an Albanian have never heard of it. The article is written in the Albanian language and it's a biography in the superlative form. In the postscript is the name of the guy who wrote the biography. Thank you. kedadial 07:54, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kosovo-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As it stands we have no way even of knowing whether it's a BLP or self-promotion of some kind. --Paularblaster (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/ Translate & add references I think my position if rather obvious IJA (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was closed as moot, page has been redirected to risk aversion. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Risk Tolerance

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

Appears to be a personal essay that exists solely to attract visitors to a commercial website. Couldn't find a CSD category that fits. NellieBly (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Can't see how it belongs in an encyclopedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 12:59, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the concept is a definitely notable economics topic, the current article is unsalvageable for encyclopedic purposes. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to re-creation. The topic is a worthy one; this essay would be difficult to shape up into an adequate article, and seems intended for promotional purposes. ~~Perhaps an interim redirect to financial risk would be in order.~~ - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Risk aversion. Risk tolerance (note capitalization) already points there. Doesn't seem to be anything to merge.--Chris Johnson (talk) 17:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, this is an even better candidate. Probably so clearly appropriate that I'll do this unless someone steps forward with a compelling reason to save this text. Redirecting would not necessarily remove the history in any case. -- Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:57, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Western Sahara national football team

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

Lacking notability, fails WP:V, no references. Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Hammersfan (talk) 14:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG and it's obvious that they only play the odd friendly every now and again. Spiderone 13:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- Non fifa board national teams are notable enough. --SM (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This isn't the case though. We have many of these "national teams" that aren't allowed articles. What makes this team notable? Spiderone 10:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - They are only provisional members of the NF Board and, according to the article, haven't done anything since 1994. Spiderone 12:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep non-FIFA national associations can be notable, article needs expanding not deleting Eldumpo (talk) 13:10, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, they can be notable. So would you like to prove why this particular one is please...? Giant Snowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one of a rash of unofficial 'national' teams, nothing to say this particular one is of note. Giant Snowman 15:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - NF team are very notable indeed. As it happens, they were meant to play in the 2006 Viva World Cup organised by the NF board, see this article in the Times. However, the tournament was downgraded because of the ELF cup and Western Sahara in the end were not included in the rosta. However, this article certainly should remain.--Tris2000 (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - supposed to play in a competition is not the same as actually playing in one; and surely the fact that they didn't just highlights their lack of notability! Giant Snowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That article actually says that they were rumoured to play in it, which is even less convincing an arugument than if the were supposed to. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I searched google and found this. It proves the existence of the team. Based on the fact that it represents a partially recognized country, I am in favor keeping this article.--TM 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - no-one doubts its existence, we are questioning its notability (or lack of it!) Giant Snowman 00:03, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep National football team = very notable. Altho, it should include a source, because I'm not sure about the name of the team... After all, "Western Sahara" is politically neutral, but it doesn't correspond to any political entity. SADR is the name of the state, so shoudn't the name be Sahrawi national football team? Rennell435 (talk) 11:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - but this isn't a "national" team in the true sense, the title of the article is misleading. It is an unofficial team claiming to represent a territoty. Giant Snowman 17:48, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I'm not quite sure what you mean... The team is affiliated with SADR, which is recognised as a state by 46 other states (including mine). It's not a dependency (if that's what you mean by "territory") of any other state. Regardless of international recognition of its government, the team represents the Sahrawi nation--a body of people (sovereign or not)--which is what the NF-Board does. So if that's your issue with the article, it could be applied to any and all of the NF teams...unless I've misinterpreted what your trying to get across. Rennell435 (talk) 09:17, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it is not a question of whether it exists or not, or whether it was supposed to have played in a tournament or not, it is a question about notability. As this team has only played a handful of matches, and hasn't played since 1994, it isn't really notable. Whereas some of the non-FIFA teams such as Zanzibar national football team, who were formerly members of CAF, are notable, doesn't mean they all are. aLSO, Western Sahara are only provisional members of the NF Board according to the article. Eddie6705 (talk) 16:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should the Catalonia football team be deleted, according to these standards? They played at irregular intervals for many years. The argument does not make much sense. Ladril (talk) 18:59, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Care to find any sources equivalent to the ones in the Catalonia article? WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Aren't The Times Online, the NF-Board website, the RSSSF (see www.rsssf.com/miscellaneous/fas-urls.html) and the CENF (see cenf.110mb.com/NFBNewMembers.html) "equivalent" sources? My view on the matter is that any team which forms part of FIFA, a continental confederation, the NF-Board, plays in the Island Games or has played any FIFA member is by definition a notable team. But I also see much of the information on this page is unsourced. The best solution would be to move its verifiable information to a new page for the Sahrawi Football Federation, while leaving this page as a stub to be expanded with verifiable information later. Wiping out every mention of Sahrawi football from the encyclopedia, as proposed, seems to me like poor form and not contributing to the improvement of the encyclopedia in any way. Ladril (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Times article is a load of tat. The other three may (or may not) constitute reliable, noteworthy sources. I don't know and I haven't checked them out, because they're not in the article. This nomination is a week old, and still no attempt has been made in the article to assert its notability. The fact that people are defending the article as it stands, whilst refusing to add these "noteworthy sources that exist" is if anything harming its chances. If the article can be made more encyclopaedic, and these "equivalent sources" are found and used in the article, your argument would be far more convincing. WFCforLife (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I completely agree with WFC. If this team is notable then surely sources can be incorporated. There is nothing stopping this article going up for AfD again in the future as not everyone will know this debate even took place. Spiderone 16:32, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Lack of sources can be solved pretty easily. I'll add one to the article. Ladril (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Okay, here are my remaining gripes.
- 1) The source is in French. This isn't a problem but given that the actual name of the country is in French, and that this is supposedly what makes the whole article notable (...), a translation needs to be given.
- 2) The article is being defended on the basis that plenty of sources can easily be found, yet there is only one, fleeting, arguably trivial mention of Western Sahara in one list on one source. That's hardly substantial coverage.
- 3) Is there a source, anywhere, in any language, referencing in any detail whatsoever a match they've played? Even if they haven't played in the internet era it should surely be possible to reference the fact that they have actually played matches at some point in their history. It would particularly help if you can reference opposition who actually have a wikipedia article themselves, as it would strengthen your case. WFCforLife (talk) 05:14, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because they have never competed at the highest level possible, which in this case would be the FIFI wild cup, the ELF cup, or the VIVA world cup. WFCforLife (talk) 12:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fairly subjective arguments about 'notability' have been proposed. Deletion of this can create a precedent that could lead to edit/deletion wars in other cases where some users can find issue, i. e. the Nauru national team only has one game in its history, and the Vatican City team has only played a few friendlies. Should they be deleted because of this? Ladril(talk) 18:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Call them subjective if you wish. Absolutely no indication of notability whatsoever has been forthcoming for Western Sahara's football team. If this sets a precident which requires other teams to demonstrate notability, then those articles which do remain will be better for it, while those that don't may be able to demonstrate notability in the future. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in the interest of combating systemic bias toward the developed world. matt91486 (talk) 23:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are articles about the football teams of some non-FIFA countries and disputed territories that most certainly would survive AfD, from both developed and developing areas. The difference is most of these have played in one of these tournaments, or else demonstrated another measure of notability. This team has made no such demonstration.

Suggestion Why don't we make this page a redirect to Western Sahara, and add something about the existence of the football team there? That way we would not be introducing systemic bias, but simply getting rid of a non-notable article. When there's something notable to write, and something reliable to back it up with, we could always restore the article. WFCforLife (talk) 05:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing GNG. – Pee Jay 13:52, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't really care to vote on this, but as it doesn't look like the article will get deleted, I thought I'd mention that the title of this article is violating NPOV policy. Western Sahara is a territory in dispute, sovereignty over which has not been resolved between Morocco and the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. If the team flies the flag of S.A.D.R. and it is indeed a Sahrawi team, then the title of the article needs to be moved to Sahrawi national football team. If the name of the team is as the title says it is, then can someone please give me verification on that? Otherwise, if the page doesn't get deleted, and nobody has any objections here, I'll make the title change automatically after this discussion is archived. Thanks. Feel free to comment. Night w (talk) 12:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would challenge your reading of the debate, as this isn't a democracy. A strong case has been made that the article is currently neither notable nor verifiable, with the counter arguments being that other stuff exists, or that "it just is notable". Anyway, I agree that if it survives that would be an appropriate move. WFCforLife (talk) 13:08, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks WCFforLife. I already stated that I'm not casting a vote here and reading the debate and adding an impartial comment (I certainly mentioned nothing about subject notability) have nothing to do with the institutions of democracy.
Suggestion - What if the page was moved to Sports in the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic? The subject is hence broadened and not restricted to a minor and (apparently fairly low-key) particular. Editors can expand on sport in the country in general, and information on this particular team can be added amongst it. Any thoughts? I have a few sources pertaining to AFL (rugby) to go in there. Night w (talk) 04:42, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would have no problem with that. WFCforLife (talk) 07:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As said before, I would prefer it if a new page was created for the Sahrawi Football Federation, with the links available on this page included. We do have sources on the existence of the federation, but few to none on the team itself. If that is done I have no problem with people deleting this page. I would create the page myself, but I have no prior experience creating pages (hope somebody can help). I will definitely not support deletion of all info on Sahrawi foorball for POV reasons. Ladril (talk) 17:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Update New page created for the Sahrawi Football Federation, whose existence is supported by sources. Hope this satisfies all sides of the argument. Ladril (talk) 17:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a sensible solution. Spiderone 18:26, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to merge the team information into that article and then get rid of this one? Night w (talk) 00:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete It appears due to conflict in this regional area of Africa and disputes within the political realms that Western Sahara national football team doesn't currently operate and hasn't operated since 1994. Although it tried to operate in 2003. Very few sources allow the article to coincide with current Wikipedia policies and due to Nouvelle Fédération-Board expelling the national team from competition it appears to not warrant inclusion on Wikipedia as having failed to ever enter into an competition. Govvy (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Several reasons... Tone 15:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gawkalitis

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

The article is about an obscure and possibly falling under WP:madeup word, which as of now is not even mentioned in the article. Instead the article includes copy-pasted definitions of words like "gawk" from dictionaries. Antipastor (talk) 09:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator: prod was refused by the editor who created the article (but without comment). There are basically very few ghits on the term, and I would tend to propose speedy deletion, as there is no content besides copying from dictionaries. Antipastor (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete no google news, books ,or scholar hits, blatent hoax UltraMagnus^speak 10:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Burn with fire: WP:MADEUP. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yet another word coined by a bored teen. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Vision

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

Unreferenced, non-notable per WP:GNG, borderline WP:SPAM for future collection of media, claimed to be under development. No trace of it can be found online, and the ELs provided don't mention it either. Prod contested by creator. MuffledThud (talk) 08:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)</small[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 08:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No external references, no justified notability. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was going to say redirect to Satyajit Ray, but this is not yet released, and no notability is asserted. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources for this. Likely hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete.--chaser (away) - talk 20:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hassan Esmaelzadeh

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

Article contains no real claim to notability. Article has no sources, and when I looked, I couldn't find any. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 07:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the article for {{notability}}, and the response from (presumably) the author was to add a couple of references that appear to be self-published, and certainly not anything I'd call a reliable source. Can't see any prospect of establishing notability, looks like vanispamcruft. Delete. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google scholar, fails WP:BIO, WP:CREATIVE. Could be even A7. Antipastor (talk) 15:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only self-published sources found. Favonian (talk) 12:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a good article. He is a great philosopher. The article should not be deleted. — 77.104.120.226 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:41, October 14, 2009 (UTC).
Delete - no evidence of notability in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Amateur hour at the philosophy club. Not notable as a philosopher or anything else (arguably not even a philosopher). Hairhorn (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of nicknames of pro wrestlers

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

Since I am not comfortable with a CSD tag on this article, I would identify this as WP:LISTCRUFT, and serves no purpose by being here. ArcAngel (talk) 06:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This AFD may now be moot as the page author requested deletion, however the edit was incorrectly reverted as vandalism. As the blanking was reverted, does the author's request still stand? ArcAngel (talk) 04:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ask for a snowy close. The author's blanking was incorrectly applied. And "moot" doesn't mean that, moot means still open for debate. Darrenhusted (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burn with fire: WP:LISTCRUFT, most probably will never meet WP:RS requirements, does not belong in an encyclopedia. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - Now is in a terrible state, but could make an interesting list -nicknaming is a quite notable part of wrestling, AFAIK. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with 李博杰, totally unencyclopedic. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One of the dangers of putting up a list, without working on it first in userspace, is that its shortcomings are more evident. This is an easy fix, probably doesn't even need to be userfied. Nicknames are an encyclopedic topic, and professional wrestling is a form of entertainment where everyone is required to have a nickname, and where most people aren't billed under their legal name. Unlike most paper encyclopedias, Wikipedia seems to have lots of articles about pro wrestlers, not something I'm interested in, but there are myriad people who enjoy it. Although this one needs some editing, there are ample sources for this type of information, and only the notable wrestlers will survive the "deadly bracket hold". The rest will turn bright red and get tossed out of the ring. Mandsford (talk) 15:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Mandsford just delivered a Shining Wizard to the nomination. Drmies (talk) 19:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A list just for nicknames just screams listcruft to me and I don't see this ever being a useful article. No reliable sources either (the only source is a Angelfire site, which is hardly reliable as Angelfire is a free host for sites, so anyone can set up their own site for free and that use that as a source).
- The above comment was mine, I forgot to sign. TJ Spyke 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list copied from an angelfire page (see:The Wrestler Who Made Milwaukee Famous (The Crusher [Reggie Lisowski]) and note the single brackets on both pages). Two concerns, first no RS and second a copyvio. If those were addressed it would still be unencyclopedic. Darrenhusted (talk) 21:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced listcruft. GaryColemanFan (talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to the three !votes above: Most of these arguments are not grounds for deletion. "I don't see this ever being useful" or "unencyclopedic" is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT. No RS and copyvio are a true concern, yet AfD is not for cleanup, and this can be dealt on the article talk page: it is more than probable that sources for these nicknames exist. In summary, the article is now really problematic but all of this can be improved; as such these arguments do not make a rationale for deletion. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, they are. You want strict ones normally used? Fine, it fails WP:V and WP:N. TJ Spyke 21:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:V: if you check you will find that a lot of pro wrestlers articles display their nicknames, along with sources. Per WP:N, it seems a common aspect of wrestling culture, and as such notable with respect to the topic. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you want to check the source used you will find that it is an exact copy, word for word, bracket for bracket, of the anglefire page, so how about WP:WEB? Or CSD A12 (copyvio)? Are you actually looking at the source at the bottom of the article? Darrenhusted (talk) 22:51, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked it, thanks, and I am well aware of that. It doesn't mean it cannot be improved anyway. As per the copyvio concern, I don't know exactly USA copyright regulation but I don't understand how a mere list can be considered original work (given how weird is USA copyright I may be wrong however). All what I am saying is basically: WP:CHANCE, WP:POTENTIAL. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 23:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since it retains the structure, format and down to the bracket typography it definitly does fall under "Copyright violation", the general content is not copyrighted no, but just copying it and not doing anything - as clear a copyright violation as it gets. This should be blanked due to copyright violation. MPJ-DK (No Drama) Talk 10:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —♥Nici♥Vampire♥Heart♥ 22:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable.--WillC 01:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: not notable--Dcheagle (talk) 02:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article is listcruft and unmaintainable. There are wrestlers with dozens of nicknames...often, new nicknames are given for every character change or feud. What qualifies a nickname to make the list? Does it have to be long-term? How long is long-term? There are also thousands of wrestlers in the world and throughout history...should independent wrestlers be included? Foreign wrestlers? If so, it will be next to impossible to source them all with reliable sources. Nikki♥311 03:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- As WP:LISTCRUFT and WP:NN.--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who created the article, it's ment to be improved. I hope this article won't get deleted. I was trying to find an article like this and I didn't find one so I decided to add this one. I'm certain that there's other people like me who have tried to find an article like this on Wikipedia. I do not see the reason to delete this asticle, there is other articles on lists of nicknames for sport players. This is only my 2nd article I have created, that's why it looks sloppy. So if you can please help me make this look better. Thank you everybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 02:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You copy and pasted another site, that's a copyright violation. You didn't create the article, you copied it. There is nothing to improve. Darrenhusted (talk) 16:14, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list, I don't see how that is a copyright violation. For example If I copy and paste a recipe to make cake, I'm certain that would not be a copyright violation. I did create the small introduction at the beginning, and made some modifications to the list, so I did not simply copy and paste the entire thing. and lastly there is lots to improve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 20:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if you took a recipe on another website and copied it to make a page on Wikipedia it would be a copyright violation. You took the page (right down to the placement of brackets) and copied it, wholesale. That you have since added an alphabetical index and added an intro does not change that fact. You started with a copyright violation, you did not create this article. To be an original work you would have to start by making it yourself, and each name would have to have several references, and each name would have to have a reference after them. However none of that would raise this to a level that met the GNG. Plagiarism is not the starting point for articles. Darrenhusted (talk) 20:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plagiarism is no good, but we can improve until it becomes no more plagiarism. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've change the list a lot, so right now there's a big difference of what I copied. I think the cake recipe was a bad example of what I was trying to say (I meant to say a cake in general not a specific kind of cake) a better example would be if I copy and paste a list of hockey team players, that wouldn't be a copyright violation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Preparationh (talk • contribs) 01:10, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it would. If another website lists the player of a hockey team with specific information and in a specific order (as the list you copied did, including all the parentheses and brackets) then you would violate the copyright of that site, even if you did not do it for profit. If you complied the same information from several sources then it would not be a violation. Copy and paste form one single site is always a breach of copyright. Learn that now before it gets you into trouble. And this list still fails the GNG. Darrenhusted (talk) 00:25, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A nickname should be mentioned in an individual wrestler's article, not as a composite list in a stand-alone article. LucyDoo (talk) 19:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosz Craig

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

Non-notable artist. Google search turns up links to the person in their capacity as an employee involved in various activities, but not to them as an artist. One reference is not clearly a reliable source; the other web source is a dead link. hamiltonstone (talk) 05:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. UltraMagnus^speak 10:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 00:43, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I'd expect that a current artist with such an unusual name would turn up something on Google, but nothing. Sources don't really indicate notability, I don't think she meets the bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:CORP, hardly any indepth coverage. the current article only has 5 references. not much on gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 04:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This issue was addressed in the previous AfD. Subscription trade information services are not normally the subject of media articles. Nonetheless, as an information provider, "Fish Information and Services" is referenced 130,000 times in Google. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Geronimo20's and DGG's discussion in the previous AfD ~~that closed a week ago~~. Gruntler (talk) 07:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't closed a week ago. It was 53 weeks ago.
What we have here is an article about an information source. I think information sources that would, themselves, be reliable sources if cited in an article, probably merit some kind of mention on Wikipedia. See WP:SJ -- for example, the Botanical Journal of the Linnean Society merits an article on Wikipedia not because it's discussed in reliable sources, but because it is a reliable source in itself.
Therefore for me, the question is whether Fish Information and Services is a reliable source in itself. Is it peer-reviewed or otherwise carefully fact-checked before publication? If so, we should have an article on it, and if not, I would think not.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is referenced a number of times in Google Scholar. --Geronimo20 (talk) 09:49, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination brings nothing new to the matter per WP:NOTAGAIN. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Important player in the industry. For the amount of information provided, it is well referenced although some more wouldn't hurt. I just put fis.com into Google news and found many results, including some by Terje Engoe, one of the most well known freelance journalists in the industry.--Baina90 (talk) 15:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy keep per WP:NOTAGAIN, seems to be some sort of crazy push to get this deleted. Ain't gonna happen. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alodia Gosiengfiao

AfDs for this article:

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

fails WP:BIO and WP:ENT, hardly any third party coverage, sources lacking. [31] LibStar (talk) 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources found by Whpq (talk · contribs) in the previous debate prove that Alodia Gosiengfiao passes WP:BIO. There are this article and this article from The Inquirer. I also found this article from digitalgames.fr. Cunard (talk) 06:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proceedural Keep per WP:NOTAGAIN, last AfD was less than one month ago. 159.182.1.4 (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -survived three previosu AfDs with good reason, and also see Cunard. Also, previous noms have been pushed by what seemed single-purpose accounts; there's some kind of agenda to delete this article for reasons unfathomable to me. Not good.--Cycl^opia - ^talk 13:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. Hoax=vandalism=speedy Tone 15:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Wallace

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

Probable hoax. Does not appear in the USL stats for Charlotte Eagles for 2009 at [32], and can find no evidence using Google that this player actually exists JonBroxton (talk) 04:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - we've got ourselves a bored teen here. Bettia (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Bettia (talk) 09:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: player's status not verifiable, and also no evidence of mention in the team's official site [33]. Antipastor (talk) 10:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as hoax, as per Bettia. Giant Snowman 11:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Who is this? Does he even exist? -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, hoax. Not speedy, as the info had to be verified before determining that it is a hoax. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of triplets

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

Poorly defined list violating WP:NOTDIR - if it *is* a "list of triplets" then there are around 900,000 triplets alive today. However, this appears to include a small selection of "notable" triplets with no defined basis for inclusion. We don't need this list. Quadruplets and above are rare enough to be notable per se, so I am not co-nominating similar lists dramatic (talk) 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: A list that will never be completed. That, or, a page that would grow to 2,886,332,584 bytes. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ unless its inclusion criteria are narrowed to notable triplets and the article renamed accordingly. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep and cleanup. I had to move this article in order to get it listed at WP:FL without risk of having freeway overpasses pop up in it. The point is, unclear inclusion criteria can be fixed. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 13:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whatever it may have looked like when it was first nominated, it's clearly limited to blue links and it's sourced. The "worst case scenario", of a list that would include every set of triplets that had ever lived, is the ad absurdum argument, and I suppose that any article could be edited to the limits of the absurd. It just never seems to actually happen. Mandsford (talk) 15:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Requires cleanup and a lead section needs to be written following the guidelines at WP:LSC, but it is well sourced and appears to follow WP:SAL#Lists of people. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mandsford; if limited to sourced, notable triplets, it's an appropriate list with a clear criterion for inclusion. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons given above. A list of notable triplets would not be unreasonable. Since this is the third time today I find myself in agreement with Mandsford, I'm leaving AfD for the day. Drmies (talk) 19:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:15, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wayside Celtic F.C.

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

not clear how this meets notability guidelines. Lacks 3rd party references demonstrating notability. RadioFan (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - actually plenty of sources are available they just need adding. The club plays at level 4 in the Irish pyramid (and have won their league three times) which is sufficiently high to secure notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. TerriersFan (talk) 03:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The club have reached the 3rd round of the FAI Cup and won the FAI Intermediate Cup - those are notable achievements which would probably provide a fair bit of meaningful media coverage. Bettia (talk) 09:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - team plays at a high enough level, and has competed in enough national competitions, to be notable. Giant Snowman 11:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it seems they reached the quarter-finals of the FAI Cup in 2008; quite an achievement for a non-league club. I have added a source. TerriersFan (talk) 14:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Plays at a high enough level. Also this chat suggests level of 4 in Ireland, which the Leinster Senior League is at, is a sensible final cut-off point for notable articles. Eddie6705 (talk) 13:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability demonstrated Spiderone 13:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Level 4 team. BigDunc 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, appearance in the later stages of the FAL Cup pass notability in my opinion.--Vintagekits (talk) 10:20, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No argument for deletion aside from the nominator. Merging should be discussed on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 22:21, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Quest

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

Non-notable fictional television program used sparingly as a minor plot element. All sources are either the episodes themselves or passing mention in articles which focus on the characters/plot or actors in the show, neither of which establish notability for Viking Quest itselt. Also, a minor flash game has been produced by HBO merely to promote the show. This game has not received any significant press which establishes notability either. A google search (web, books, and scholar) turned up nothing which focuses on Viking Quest (again, limited mention in works about the show, characters or actors), so it's doubtful that sources exist anywhere to establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Entourage (TV Series). I loves me the Viking Quest but it has no notability outside of that show and isn't even a major plot point within the show's context. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - To anyone commenting, be sure to check out the extensive Merge discussion on the talk page. As I read the discussion there, the dissent is really more to do with DoctorFluffy's several attempts to unilaterally delete or redirect the page than any solid arguments against a merge, but I stand to be corrected. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't "unilaterally delete" as I'm not an administrator, so I'm unsure what you mean. Regarding the history here, several months ago, someone else brought up that Viking Quest was non-notable on the talk, I redirected, it was undone, and I expected sources to be added which would demonstrate notability. I forgot about it for a while and, recently, I checked out the article again. Some work had been done, but the sources were still entirely insufficient, so again I redirected and again it was undone. My requests for sources on the talk page were met with wikilawyering, stubbornness, and copypasta policy. I also informed them that a merge could be done easily if they so desired. No sources to establish notability were provided and no merge was done while the interested editor told me repeatedly to "follow policy" for non-notable material, which does indeed indicate AFD after good faith attempts at merging/redirecting, so here we are. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not having a go at you, Doctorfluffy, bringing the article to AfD seems to be to have been appropriate; I'm just saying that the heat on the talk page is directed at you rather than being genuine arguments for retention. - DustFormsWords (talk) 20:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I was just giving a condensed history since the talk page is long and messy. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to a section in Entourage - There's actually a lot of content, but I don't think it's enough for a fork. Shows within a show open the door to fancruft articles, even if this page looks good right now. (addition: I'm a regular watcher of the show, which I say only to indicate I have some context about the importance of the show within the show) Shadowjams (talk) 07:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only news [34] I see for it, seems to be brief, and related to the series. Dream Focus 20:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. It's better referenced than most of the Entourage character articles, including a Variety article about the game. [35] If merged, it should be added to Johnny Drama rather than Entourage. chocolateboy (talk) 21:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that other articles are even more poorly sourced doesn't justify keeping this article. The game is an HBO produced advertisement for the show. The article you link even states that. That article is in no way a useful source for anything either. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't mind that it's an advertisement, but I doubt the game itself is notable enough to give it an article. If you merge it into Johnny Drama there ought to be a {{main|Johnny Drama#Viking Quest}} in the Entourage article and a reference. Shadowjams (talk) 02:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was just pointing out that the game isn't a true "game" in the sense that Viking Quest is so popular that an unassociated development studio wanted to make a full-length game about it and sell it as a major release. Cross medium expansion like that usually indicates a higher degree of notability for the franchise as a whole. This is nothing like that. It's flash game funded by HBO that functions as a lame marketing ploy. It's a big difference that needs to be noted. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the Variety article[36] that Chocolateboy found. "Videogames based on TV shows aren't new, but "Viking Quest" may be the first based on a TV show within a TV show." Sounds like there is something that makes it notable after all. And it is mentioned in plenty of places, usually along with the show though. Dream Focus 02:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From the article, it's "promo stunt funded by HBO". It's not an independent game, it's just an extended advertisement to draw clicks on the interwebs. The statement you quote is obviously facetious, clearly not a serious academic claim about the cultural impact of this "game". How you could mistake such a trivial blurb as evidence of notability is beyond me. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Totally not relevant to the debate, but Variety would be totally wrong in that claim in any event: The Itchy & Scratchy Game comes to mind, dating to 1995. More to the point, we're not arguing that Viking Quest isn't notable; we're arguing it's not notable enough to merit a stand-alone page. - DustFormsWords (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check the reply I just made to Shadowjams. I'm not going to retype it here, but it needs to be clear that the game doesn't increase the notability of Viking Quest since it's just a product of HBO marketing. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, nomination withdrawn with no delete votes. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apoorva D. Patel

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

I don't see how the subject satisfies WP:PROF. Article has only 1 reference, which is a popular science article. Robin (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Err on the side of keep - the article asserts notability, even if it doesn't do well at backing it up, and given that he's from a non-English background and in a highly specialised field I don't feel remotely competent to trawl the sources to check him out. I'd rather see a potentially non-notable article kept than a genuinely notable one deleted. - DustFormsWords (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Has he published anything? The article sourcing seems thin... ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, author search on "Apoorva Patel" shows his work has significant numbers of citations. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 09:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is certainly an issue of false-positives, given the commonality of the surname. However, WoS, using the somewhat focused query "Author=(patel a*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(PHYSICS, NUCLEAR OR PHYSICS, FLUIDS & PLASMAS OR PHYSICS, PARTICLES & FIELDS OR PHYSICS, ATOMIC, MOLECULAR & CHEMICAL OR PHYSICS, MULTIDISCIPLINARY OR PHYSICS, CONDENSED MATTER OR PHYSICS, APPLIED) AND Institutions=(CERN OR INDIAN INST SCI OR CALTECH) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" shows 94 journal articles and an h-index of 36 with citations 255, 235, 127, ... Though the article certainly needs improvement, the subject clearly passes WP:PROF. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:50, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep Gscholar shows significant publications/good no of citations. Also a PROF at Indian Institute of Science, India's premier institute in terms of research and faculty quality, would be expected to pass WP:PROF. -SpacemanSpiff 18:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:PROF. Joe Chill (talk) 19:57, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: How come the nominator found only 1 source while Agricola44 found well over 1000? Xxanthippe (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- Cos Agricola didn't use Google. You don't need to know how to interrogate a dedicated academic portal to work here but it helpe. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Scholar is available to everybody. Searching for "A Patel" in the field of High Energy Physics I find cites of 150, 94, 88, 82 etc. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The nominator did not claim that he found only 1 source. I said the "article has only 1 reference," which means the present article only contained 1 reference. --Robin (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. However the nominator also said that subject failed WP:Prof whereas the data on WoS and GS shows that he passes WP:Prof #1 very adequately. It is the job of the nominator to produce the citation data and not leave the work to others. "When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist." Xxanthippe (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Fair enough. I just said "I don't see how the subject satisfies WP:PROF," which indicated that I did not see the article assert which part of WP:PROF was being satisfied. The other points in WP:PROF are easy to determine, #1 on the other hand is a bit tricky, hence I AfDed. Anyway, it's clear now. --Robin (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn. Robin (talk) 23:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Royer

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

This subject doesn't seem to meet the WP:BIO requirements for reliable independent coverage. My google news search didn't turn up anything but a passing mention. Article has been tagged for notability concerns for 7 months, it probably should go. Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 21:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 16:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment. The article is a BLP so a second relist is reasonable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't see evidence of substantial coverage in reliable sources and if there is any notability I would say it's marginal based on the write up (which is pretty promotional). ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. The consensus here among the arguments that made an argument that wasn't thrown out seems to be that the sources provided were not significant enough to pass either the general notability guildeline or WP:PORNBIO. NW (Talk) 21:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asa Akira

AfDs for this article:

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

Delete non-notable (porn star) HyperCapitalist (talk) 04:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Same reasons as first nomination. And "non-notable" really means IDONTLIKEIT.SPNic (talk) 12:49, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I love her work. :) HyperCapitalist (talk) 13:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry then, but my vote still stands.SPNic (talk) 13:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Previous AfD established it passes notability criteria. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous AfD actually closed as "no consensus", which does not establish that it passed notability criteria. The guidelines at WP:PORNBIO require any of: winning a well known award, being nominated in multiple years for a well known award, being a Playboy Playmate, making unique contributions to a specific genre, or being mentioned multiple times in notable mainstream media. This person does meet any of these criteria. Kevin (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Narrowly passes WP:N in my opinion. Epbr123 (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO, not enough nominations or media coverage. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 01:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC) 01:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Sorry hun, but you just don't meet WP:PORNBIO. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs email 13:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would starring in an AVN Editor's Choice film make her more notable: [37]SPNic (talk) 15:46, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I guess you mean this link [38], but I still don't think this is sufficient to pass WP:N. Antipastor (talk) 16:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No mainstream media coverage (0 Gnews, couldn't find any other). Just an award nomination, but I also think not enough to pass WP:PORNBIO and I don't see much potential for improvement of the article at this time. Antipastor (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:PORNBIO may have been changed since the last AfD, she still meets condition 5 with her appearances on Bubba the Love Sponge's show.SPNic (talk) 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. A single, apparently minor and undocumented role on a radio show should not be enough to satisfy the "multiple" requirements of the guideline. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:26, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be a fairly new model, and yet already has had a notable award nomination (New Starlet of the Year - XBIZ Award), and IAFD and AFDB show fairly extensive filmographies. She seems to be borderline right now, but, taking the mainstream appearance into account, shows indications of a significant career in the field in its early stage. Err on the side of more information, I say. Why waste time deleting the article when it will just have to be recreated later? Dekkappai (talk)
Delete. Fails PORNBIO. A single notable award nomination doesn't cut it. While she may appear to be headed toward a promising porn career, we don't go on predictions when deciding whether to keep or delete. She gets an article when she meets our inclusion standards, not before because it may save time. Lara 15:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wrote she appeared to be heading towards a significant career in the field. I didn't say she didn't yet meet our inclusion standards. She does, through multiple secondary coverage: Reviews, etc. at AVN (magazine), which I believe is considered a reliable source for coverage of the US adult entertainment industry. Dekkappai (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're the only keep vote that bothered to make an argument, but it doesn't persuade me. I don't think she's got enough coverage to meet standards. You say it's borderline, I say it's not enough. Lara 21:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lydia Patel

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

Possible autobiography, not sufficiently notable. Cassandra 73 (talk) 16:27, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Needs a rewrite, if not delete it.--Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 16:31, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Incubate Now the article seems vanity at most, but the subject shows some promise of notability. WP:INCUBATOR seems the right place. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 16:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the subject meets any of the criteria in WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 03:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Good_Times#Minor_characters. Done. I merged it myself. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:26, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleatus

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

I really can't see that this character is sufficiently notable to have an article. He does not even appear in the list of minor characters in the main article, most of which don't have their own articles. Derek Andrews (talk) 18:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, nominator sums it up well. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doc Quintana (talk) 01:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Good Times where there is already a list of minor characters. No reason to lose this content about an important and influential show. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:27, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Turman

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

Non-notable author with zero GNEWS and no GHits of substance to support notability. Appears to fail WP:BIO ttonyb (talk) 05:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 22:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete: I dispute this nomination. I found significant coverage. Added link to Google Book in article. Try the following using the middle name:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) 98.154.77.14 (talk) 23:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – I see the coverage you are referring to; however, it is hardly significant. They are mostly short blurbs about his book and do not cover the subject of the article in depth. ttonyb (talk) 23:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least for now. Rather than (invalidly) tagging the article as a speedy candidate less than 15 minutes after it appeared, then nominating the article for deletion without doing adequate research, it would have been much better if the nominator had actually offered help to the original author. Since the article subject is generally known as "Joe Garner Turman," a point that required about 30 seconds to discover, it's clear that all the kerfluffle about "zero GNews" hits and such is misleading, and should have been struck once the error was pointed out. I don't know that the subject will prove notable in the long run, but there's enough out there to allow a verifiable stub to be written; his best-known work is in a category (Christian/evangelical fiction for young readers) that gets next to no coverage in web sources, but adequate coverage in print sources that will probably take time to turn up. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or possibly merge with his brother Buddy Turman's article. Semi-notable author. Has some substantial coverage and mentions in reliable sources. Seems to me to improve the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -Book in state library is some indication of notability although I have some doubts whether we really need this article. Himalayan 13:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references are unreliable tributes. Posssibly www.thesweetscience.com is considered reliable, but the article is about his brother, not him or the book. The only book of his in any worldCat library is Sling Creek, and it's in only 4 of them, even though it's been published for 2 years now. [39]. Of course some, like, the state library , may not have listed it yet--but having a book in such a collection devoted to all state authors is the very essence of indiscriminate. As determining factor, the publisher is Tate Publishing & Enterprises which calls itself a "publishing service" [40], so the books must be considered as vanity publication. There are many notable authors in Christian fiction for young people, but he is not yet one of them. DGG ( talk ) 04:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While the delete arguments could have been fleshed out more, the sources in the article, consisting primarily of industry publications, do not seem to estiablish notability. I am willing to userfy this article upon request so that sources establishing notability can be added. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:12, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep to Live Institute

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

Looks like advertising, but well written - so not completely sure RT | Talk 19:16, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets basic notable guidelines of significant, reliable, secondary sources cited accordingly. Additionally, this is an R&D facility that is not marketing/advertising anything. It does research. Cronides2 (talk) 20:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added additional content of notable innovations developed by the Sleep to Live Institute and media coverage both domestic and abroad to further alleviate concerns of non-notability. Additionally, secondary sources with those additions have doubled. Feel free to provide further feedback if there are additional concerns and/or suggestions to better improve the content. Thanks Cronides2 (talk) 14:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only a single g news hit, and that is just an interview with someone from them as a psuedoexpert UltraMagnus^speak 10:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Cronides2 (talk) 16:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Magnus, can you be more specific with your concern? There are 11 references and/or links to external news sources that include several US, nation-wide publications (regardless of your personal familiarity with them) in addition to two Australian programs (one of which include the "ABC" name that you may be focusing on for its obvious familiarity to anyone). News sources are not defined as good based on individual familiarity, or more to the point, lack thereof with those that are pertinent to the industry represented. Cronides2 (talk) 15:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, the purpose of listing the interviews with Dr. Oexman (the head of the Sleep to Live Institute) are specifically to establish his notability as an expert in the field (beyond his credentials as a Dr. trained in Sleep with work at Sleep Labs at Stanford under Dr. Dement, University of Toronto, and Harvard) that is invited to speak in the media and at public venues. Cronides2 (talk) 16:05, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability concerns have been addressed. Multiple industry-significant, reliable, secondary sources present. Users claiming reasons for deletion have not posed a valid argument or any discussion in regard to claims. Cronides2 (talk) 13:36, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe. — Jake Wartenberg 00:55, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RGS SLST

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

Page contains information about an organisation that has no notability other than the confines of the school it resides in. The article is mostly comprised of a list of kit that they own Sage1314 (talk) 10:05, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It plays relevance in the history of an almost 500 year old school and is a provider of service to a royal building. --92.19.146.30 (talk) 18:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the school, it still fails to meet notability guidelines. And your definition of 'royal building' seems to be 'any building that was officially opened by a member of the royal family' as that is the only possible way it could fall under such criteria, and that fact hardly makes it notable in any case Sage1314 (talk) 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Royal Grammar School, High Wycombe ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per CoM UltraMagnus^speak 10:10, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - completely unnotable. Even I went to this school, but such a specific article about basically what is an after school club is ridiculous. 91.85.186.195 (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 10:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Distributor (band)

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

fails WP:MUSIC. While it does have third-party coverage, such sources are unreliable. Ironholds (talk) 19:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Note that the bulk of teh article content was lifted off the band's Myspace page and has been removed as a copyright violation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text was written by me for their site so i hold the copyright. What other sources/references are needed?Stroopy (talk) 14:01, 11 October 2009

Hi Stroopy. Do you understand that by contributing text to Wikipedia you thereby license it to the public for reuse under CC-BY-SA and GFDL. Ie. you no longer have the copyright you are thinking you had. Wikipedia:Copyrights. If you want the text you wrote to be spread further then good. otherwise? Duffbeerforme (talk) 17:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Err, no, Stroopy still holds the copyright - it isn't magically now held by WMF. Stroopy has just licensed the WMF to use it under certain circumstances. In any case this is irrelevant and not part of the real issue - there is no question of copyright here, only notability. Ironholds (talk) 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It appears what I tried to say differs from what I actually said. Ironholds comment expands on what I was trying to say (a change, not a loss). It also brings us back to the important point in this afd. notability. Duffbeerforme (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright is not and has never been the issue. We have a standard of notability or importance which bands have to live up to. This is primarily done by looking at sources; the full notability guideline for bands can be found by looking at WP:MUSIC. The primary claim of notability, although not the only one, is that the band or musician "Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable". There doesn't seem to be this sort of coverage for Distributor. Ironholds (talk) 19:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

drop-d.ie is a very prominant and popular irish music review site and i think their review of distributor's album is noteworthy. metal-temple.com is also a popular metal music review and news website. Their are currently more critics who have requested a copy of the album to review and the band is also set to appear on Ireland's national tv station, RTÉ One in Spring. Stroopy (talk) 23:12, 12 October 2009
Neither are reliable, though. If and when Distributor appear on Irish TV, then we can include them (assuming that it passes WP:MUSIC) but we do not keep articles based on potential future notability. Ironholds (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:50, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Navyn OS

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

fails WP:GNG. Ironholds (talk) 19:48, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no non-trivial third party coverage or notability established. --GreyCat (talk) 10:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this linux distribution. Joe Chill (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:BURDEN. This is just distrocruft. Miami33139 (talk) 18:55, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. i will resist the urge to lol at the fact that the article mentions the random gnu software that's bundled with it. Theserialcomma (talk) 04:04, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Composite material. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:23, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Composite Material

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

Contested PROD; I can't find significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, therefore fails general notability guidelines; when I PRODded, it only had a primary source; since then, 1 source has been added, which seems to be a passing mention in a niche-market Chinese magazine. I do not think that a verifiable article can be written on this subject. Chzz ► 20:42, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I'm not sure that an article whose title includes "MCM", and whose abstract makes it clear that it is about this subject, qualifies as a "passing mention". But, then again, it's a Chinese journal, so I suppose it's too obscure to count. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I meant was, that the website linked has only 1 paragraph; as far as I can ascertain, that is the extent of the coverage in the reference. Chzz ► 11:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to composite materials article and those working on that article sort out what they want to include on this subject. Seems to have some notability, but I don't know if it's enough for its own article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to composite materials, per WP:DGAF has good google books, news, and scholar coverage, but may not warrent its own article UltraMagnus^speak 10:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metro Gallery

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

No third party sources; none obvious on initial Google search; can be read as advertising for gallery, containing only close paraphrases of gallery webpage info; non-notable gallery hamiltonstone (talk) 11:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 07:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Appears to be advertising for a non-notable gallery. Orderinchaos 16:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 18:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Point Entertainment Group

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

Unsourced article stub about a non-notable producer of some kind of media (presumably television) Orange Mike | Talk 22:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep google brings back verification of the company's productions and they are carried on widely available international television carriers, as confirmed by their own materials and IMDB [41]. The article should have some good primary sources. Additionally, the company seems to have been nominated for a Gemini Award [42] which is the Canadian equivalent of the Emmy Awards presented by the The Academy of Canadian Cinema & Television. [43]. I'm usually a hard sell on this kind of thing, but they seem to meet a reasonable threshold. --Torchwood Who? (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be involved in several notable productions and investments. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep 16 g news hits UltraMagnus^speak 10:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep: it's involved in numerous national television projects in Canada and the US, nominated for prestigious awards like the Geminis, and it's also involoved in broadcasting 2 national television channels in Canada. I think it's notable. musimax. (talk) 23:11, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 21:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Brock

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

fails WP:MUSICBIO Dlabtot (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not yet notable. Kevin (talk) 23:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep claims to International Bluegrass Music Association awards, which are covered by the AP[44] Martin Raybourne (talk) 20:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please read WP:MUSICBIO. "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award." Dlabtot (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be adequate coverage for a short article for this young musician [45]. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for including that google link, which shows pretty definitively the he has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. We do have specific criteria for determining whether a musician is notable enough to merit an article on Wikipedia. You can find it at WP:MUSICBIO. Being 'young' is not a part of it, and neither are brief trivial mentions in stories about some other topic. Dlabtot (talk) 16:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No non-trivial sources; everything Child dug up was trivial. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under WP:ANYBIO. Subject has won one individual and four group awards from the IBMA, which are notable (for example, 2009 awards were given out about two weeks ago, and GNews reports more than 200 hits). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From the IBMA page: "IBMA, is a trade association to promote bluegrass music." Trade associations make up bogus "awards" all the time to promote their products. That doesn't make them notable. In fact the IBMA article lacks any references or sources and has been so tagged for more than a year. There is no indication of notability. They apparently do know how to issue a press release, however. Dlabtot (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't yet have a clear view, but I've added some refs to the article and have left word on a couple of pages to see if we can't get some more comment from people in this area.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, just saw a Wall Street Journal article which I added to the IBMA article, which indicated that the IMBA awards are the genre's Grammys. If the IBMA award is deemed a major award, I think he qualifies by virtue of his individual IBMA award this year.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:19, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if it can be verified, because he has toured nationally, and has gottom some notable awards, which are enough to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Bearian (talk) 15:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearian, Hull, Child, and WSJ article. Meets notable award criterion.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 06:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caralho

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

Wikipedia is not a foreign-language dictionary. Damiens.rf 19:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A dictionary definition. Joe Chill (talk) 20:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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