Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 25: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 00:06, 1 January 2010

< 24 December	26 December >

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 keep. Consensus is that, despite being a small private school, it qualifies as a high school (presumed notable) and enough sources exist to verify the article's content. Regards, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 17:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Parker academy

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

A non-notable private academy for special needs students. No non-trivial third party sources (google and gnews don't turn up anything), article ammounts to little more than a press-release or ad. Article would probably qualify under G11 if it weren't about a school. 2 says you, says two 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per 2. Not for this encyclopedia.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. The article appears to be reasonably neutral. — Eastmain (talk) 02:51, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All indications are that it is authorized to grant a high school diploma, so it qualifies as a high school. I'm imagining John Wayne saying, "Not for this encyclopedia, pilgrim!" (from the film Verifiable Grit) Mandsford (talk) 20:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school and sources are available from which the page can be expanded; a much better option than deletion. TerriersFan (talk) 22:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Content is Neutral and no longer in violation of G11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Muchie11791 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's comment The contributor who rewrote the page's content did a fantastic job cutting the POV and spam. That being said, I'm highly concerned about the listed references:

1) I have an issue counting GNIS as a reference at all, it only provides the GPS coordinates of the building itself.

2) The NH state page for Concord School district is not non-trivial, merely lists contact information for the school.

3) The IES page has some great statistics about the school, but nothing that isn't given for many other schools in the country, and nothing showing non-trivial coverage.

4) The program approval is great for the purposes of WP:V and expanding facts, but is not enough to stand on its own to prove notability.

I was unable to find any other sources that didn't fall into this realm, no non-trivial coverage even in local newspaper archives or in journals. While I agree that all public high schools (and possibly by extension charter schools) are notable based on their importance in the local community, and that local non-trivial coverage can almost always be found (I know there's a WP policy that states this, but I can't think of it of the top of my head), I do not believe that this necessarily applies to private schools. Although many private schools are notable based on non-trivial coverage, historical significance, or other reasons, I just don't see that here: it's a relatively new school, and while it may have an effective and valued program to it's students, that alone doesn't justify an article, we create articles on subjects where notability is established to exist not where it might exist. Their program may be notable in the future, but Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and until that time it should be either deleted or redirected to the school district or municipality with a note added there. When their program receives coverage, I have no issue with recreation, and likewise if anyone can find print coverage that isn't showing up online, I'm all for keeping. 2 says you, says two 16:13, 29 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gary B. Cohen

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

fails WP:BIO. Ironholds (talk) 22:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom + Just Ask Leadership could probably go up for nomination as well.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant personal promo. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, spammy promotional article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:17, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The references that appear to cite neutral sources - Ernst and Young and the Aspen Institute - are actually just to the organization's websites and do not mention him. The book may be notable; the author is not. --MelanieN (talk) 02:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[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 Catherine Asaro. After reading the discussion, the best thing to do is to merge the articles to a cover one. As no such article exists at the moment, I am making temporal redirects to the author's page. Tone 16:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roca Skolia

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

as before; unsourced. non-notable fictional character bios that are inappropriate for inclusion. delete.

Also nominating:

Eldrinson Althor Valdoria (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kurj Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Kelricson Garlin Valdoria Skolia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These are all insignificantly improved since their prior no consensus closes.

Jack Merridew 21:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Jack Merridew 21:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unreferenced plot regurgitation -- unless there's an appropriate, non-crufty List of X, in which case redirect to the characters' entries there. --EEMIV (talk) 04:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all (and others) into a to be created ~~Characters in the Saga of the Skolian Empire~~Saga of the Skolian Empire. Especially since my experience with Jagernaut has shown that secondary sources can be found. Debresser (talk) 16:24, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I didn't think that Saga of the Skolian Empire was itself anything more than a redirect. Should not that be created first? Jclemens (talk) 16:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. When I merged it, it was no more than a list of titles of the books in this series. Now we could use it to merge all these articles there, and Jagernaut as well. Debresser (talk) 19:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Debresser, there are no analytical secondary sources cited. This is simply not significant enough to generate such sources (unlike, say, Asimov's Foundation trilogy where there is significant scholarly analysis of what the characters were meant to portray). Wikipedia is not a fan-wiki, the general notability guideline exists because we are not a fan-wiki, not a directory of fictional elements and not a place to begin the process of documenting something. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all (and others) into a Saga of the Skolian Empire. per Jagernaut. Ikip 19:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the Catherine Asaro page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep Central characters in Saga of the Skolian Empire with some work articles could be salvaged. RP459 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are indeed the most central characters. A fifth was deleted, IMO unjustly, and could also be restored to the new central article. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Edward321's argument in previous AFD. Significant character in major series by award-winning writer. Given the extent to which Asaro's fiction has been written about and reviewed, particularly offline, the issue is not whether sufficient sources exist, but whether the fact that such sources don't turn up easily in Google searches justifies deletion of the article. The New York Review of Science Fiction isn't online, nor is Locus, nor Foundation, nor Extrapolation, nor many of the other sources where the needed sourcing can be expected, including even the review columns from the popular sf/f magazines. The fact that coverage isn't online doesn't make it insignificant. And, the last time I looked, WP:DELETEBECAUSETOOHARDTOLOOKUPBECAUSEITSNOTINDEXEDBYGOOGLE wasn't policy. (Maybe that's too sarcastic. But too many of these fiction discussions simply ignore the fact that there's a significant universe of sources that aren't Google-accessible. Book review indexes, for example, which are usually proprietary databases sold to libraries and colleges, for example.) In the prior AFDs, several of which were inexplicably not listed here by the (re)nominator, delete was generally the least favored !vote, after keep and merge. Since Asaro is one of those writers who writes sprawling series whose characters typically turn up in multiple books, content like this is useful for those interested in the writer; the question is over form (individual v. collective articles), and the nominator's lack of satisfaction over the pace with which that question is being addressed is certainly not a reason for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Insubstantial fluff, suitable for a fanwiki but not WP. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Debresser. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:33, 31 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DrawAnywhere

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 21:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is unreferenced and appears to be non-notable. 3rd party reliable sources are needed to establish notability. Dialectric (talk) 22:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. The article was created by the owner of the company. [1]. Pcap ping 05:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only independent coverage I found was on some blogs like [2]. Pcap ping 05:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, wasn't able to find any substantial coverage in reliable sources. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:19, 31 December 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. This didn't need to be relisted. Joe Chill (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Python IDE

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep ~~(for now)~~. Well-known Python IDE, mentioned in a a lot of books. Will look for something in-depth. Pcap ping 21:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A lot of those are false positives because of Eric Idle jokes, but this German book has one page on it. YMMV. Pcap ping 22:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Linux Journal review. Pcap ping 22:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Linux.com community blog review [3]. Python IDE comparison [4] (Eric is authors preference). --Fredrik Orderud (talk) 01:18, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as multiple independent sources have been listed. --Karnesky (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Handschuh-^{talk to me} 09:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. the consensus is the soucing is thin and many opf te keep arguments are falling outside the GNG to find evidence of notability and are therefore not policy based. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chrismahanukwanzakah

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

This is a neologism created for an ad campaign whose lack of worth becomes more evident with each passing year. This has survived 2 previous AFD, the first mostly on the grounds of "I hear the ad on tv all the time", and the second on "well it won an award", which the word didn't, the commercial did, and even then, it tied for third place in a very specific subcategory - Telecom ads. It also is lacking in notability sources. Delete as non notable. CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 20:00, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep the phrase has fast become well-known worldwide and there is also a lot of coverage on the interent from reliable sources that could be included in the article. Definitley notable, no doubt about that.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 20:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is not about the phrase. The article is about the Commercial.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 00:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Wikipedia is not a dictionary--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 00:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep Essentially per AtlaticDeep. It clearly survived the first two nominations for a good reason.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep This is notable and is still is notable. With just a little research, I've uncovered plenty of recent references to this label. Elielilamasabachthani (talk) 17:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then add them too the article or list them here, please.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 17:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: Voter is known sockpuppet on matters directly related to this topic, see [Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Elielilamasabachthani/Archive]. FWIW. --CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 06:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. Was clearly a one-time idea from a Virgin Mobile commercial that has little notability into the present, aside from occasional media use for absurdity effect. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it has become one of the more common phrases of the time. And that's just without the commercial notability.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with AlanticDeep. Besides, look at the last two Afd nominations. Better yet, look at the reason the most recent one closed as keep:

The result was Keep due to notability not being temporary. Davewild (talk) 16:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It does NOT have only "temporary" notability. It has ongoing notability. --Lionmadness (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- — æk ^Talk 03:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One-shot novelty marketing slogan with no lasting encyclopedic value. Warrah (talk) 04:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is thin on this one, but it's there. And, as the previous AFDs note, Notability is not temporary. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, neologism. I dispute the fact that it's known "worldwide", as I'd never heard of it until I came across this discussion. Wouldn't object a merge with a "List of Virgin Mobile USA advertising campaigns" article though. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO. Known world wide? If you say so. But that's not the criteria for a neo, is it? Niteshift36 (talk) 18:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ONE reference in an outside source - an ABC News item from 2004 - is not enough to constitute notability. Nobody seems to have noticed it since then. --MelanieN (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 16:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notability is not temporary. Gosox5555 (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't meet the GNG. RMHED (talk) 17:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. Nor, from time to time, rational. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep/Rewrite - Just throwing in my two cents to help reach some sort of consensus. My thoughts on notability match those of Hullaballoo above. Notability is not temporary and isn't always rational. But CastAStone way up above noted that the article is about the commercial when the term is what has notability. The article should be re-written to focus more on the term with just passing mention of the commercial. Doomsdayer520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never heard of it, I don't remember it, I can't believe it was ever notable, but it apparently is [5]. Mandsford (talk) 19:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge and redirect to Virgin Mobile USA at most. Notability is not temporary, true, but that Ad nauseam argument overlooks that this was not notable to begin with and the reasons given in the prior AfDs were not reasons at all. Tied for third place for an Effie, and got some slow news day, Christmas season fluff pieces, probably written from a press release? Incidentally, the number of news hits goes down further when +virgin is added to exclude articles where writers independently invented the rather obvious compound word.[6] Humbug! Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 23:57, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Initially I thought weak keep, but the article reads like an advert for Virgin. Would need a lot of re-writing to keep I think, the one reference is a concern. DRosin (talk) 21:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hullaballoo Wolfowitz and Mansfold - further evidence that if I hate some pop-culture meme, then it is probably notable. Bah humbug! Bearian (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Soft redirect to Wiktionary. The article is about an advertising campaign that does not meet the standards required for notability (3rd place in a specific sub-category of one awards ceremony does not cut the mustard). As for the word itself, Wikipedia is not a dictionary but it seems to merit an entry at Wiktionary (I'm just about to create wikt:Chrismahanukwanzakah). Thryduulf (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The news sources suggested by Mandsford prove that the word is in use, but don't unequivocally show notability of the "event", as opposed to the word. One of those news pieces suggests a possible link with Christmas controversy; if there are more like this, a merge may be appropriate. Otherwise, a soft redirect to Wiktionary, as advocated by Thryduulf, may be better. Given that this has been discussed three times, I fear that deletion will just lead to re-creation. Cnilep (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep easily meets WP:N. [7] is a good example, but there are plenty of articles from major news sources purely on this topic. Should there be? Probably not. But there you are. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That article would be a good source for an article about the concept of festivals combining several religion's holidays that take place in December, but that is not the subject of this article. The subject of this article is primarily about the advertising campaign and the ABC News article you link to only mentions it twice, both times in passing. We can use this article to verify that (a) the campaign existed and (b) it was designed to sell Virgin Mobile phones - which is not enough to base an article on. Others have suggested the wp article be refocused to be about the word, but this source is completely silent on that so would not be of any use for verification purposes. Thryduulf (talk) 13:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't mean it meets the notability criteria at all. Either your saying it meets it for being a word, which it doesn't, or it does for being a holiday, which it doesn't - its an ad jingle that caused a MINOR stir in 2005 and has since been abandoned. Flash in the pan does not meet the General notability guideines.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 18:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are at least 3 keeps here that argue that it shouldn't be here but it meets WP:N so we should keep it. I remind the closing admin that WP:N is a guideline that was built by consensus with the further consensus that it can be overridden by consensus when it makes sense, see WP:IAR. If you think this shouldn't meet the notability guidelines but want to keep it, your missing the entire point of Wikipedia's consensus system and descriptive - not prescriptive - guidelines.--CastAStone /^{/₵₳$↑₳}^{₴₮ʘ№€} 18:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in the absence of any multiple, non-trivial coverage of this ad campaign.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Chrismukkah, and replace with a soft redirect to wikt:Chrismahanukwanzakah. While I came into this debate expecting the article to meet WP:GNG easily, I'm admittedly having a difficult time finding sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a separate article. However, I do favor the idea of preserving some of the information in the Chrismukkah article, and creating a soft redirect to Wiktionary. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:36, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's an ad campaign! Come on, one mention after all this discussion above, in an ABC online post is not enough to make it notable, not to mention it's p art of a freaking ad campaign. Shadowjams (talk) 05:27, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It became notable not only from the commercial but also the fact that it's used in conversation around the holidays. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Juneja

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

The article is riddled with original research and in fact unsourced research. There is no reason for a surname to be notable - especially when the substantially questionable claims are historic and not backed by secondary sources. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 02:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or merge with Arora, their sub-caste. Bearian (talk) 03:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stinks of OR. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:37, 31 December 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. Per H₂O(s). (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Noida-Greater Noida Expressway

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

No notability reason given in the article. It's only a standard expressway in Delhi presumably. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a long tradition of regarding expressways as encyclopedic. There has been extensive media coverage of it (see the references in the article), so it passes the general notability guidelines. - Eastmain (talk) 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a 15 mile expressway must be notable. Has anyone done any searches for sources? I have found five good sources here. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. The current sources are pretty good, too. Why was this nominated? Bearian (talk) 01:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is put into context in National Expressway (India), no question that it's notable. Article could be WP:BETTER with a map and a list of exits. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The construction of this expressway has greatly enhanced the economic condition of the entire area, obvious from references, and is a prestigious project of the Govt.; notable enough to warrant an article! Thanks!--Ekabhishek^talk 05:16, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources within the article and the Gnews/gbooks links in the nomination show that it passes WP:GNG. I fail to understand the rationale of "no notability reason given in the article". -SpacemanSpiff 07:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I refer here to Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability as no comparative project exists for Indian roads. The link mentions that though interstate highways are generally notable, " If the article does not answer the question of why does this road exist, that is grounds for deletion of the article." The article says that the road was provided to relieve the National Highway - 2. However, the source provided does not confirm this at all. Other sources are good but they show only what happened 'after' the highway was constructed (In other words, Was the development around the expressway the reason for notability or the notability of the expressway the reason for development?). Therefore, if editors out here feel the current sources do provide an answer to the question on why the road exists, I would go with them. If they don't, then I retain my delete request. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:13, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation. Priyanath ^talk 00:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability would get priority over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Common outcomes#Transportation. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:29, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Did the Indian road system become part of the US road system? I must have missed that news piece.-SpacemanSpiff 07:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman, If there is an Indian Roads/Notability guideline, kindly do mention it out here. It'll be more appropriate. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. -SpacemanSpiff 15:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spaceman, that's a general notability guideline, nothing related specifically to Indian roads. Wikipedia:WikiProject_U.S._Roads/Notability is the closest project we have on Wikipedia that talks about why articles on road, which may be generally notable, can be deleted.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:14, 31 December 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 Withdrawn. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Educational Institutions in Karaikal

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

This article page should actually have been a category rather than a separate page. I propose we delete the page and have a category instead. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a valid list for educational institutions in the region and no reason it can not coexist with a category. Of the 49 items in the list, only #49 appears to be not notable for its own article, while I can't say for sure about #46 and #47. Everything else, can actually be articles per our notability guidelines, and having this list seems to be a very valid option now. -SpacemanSpiff 20:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is nothing wrong with this being a list. Joe Chill (talk) 19:04, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - lists and categories coexist. The way forward is to link each item, with the red links providing signposts for article development. TerriersFan (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I do think that lists and categories can coexist and don't need to be mutually exclusive. I suggest this be considered my taking back my request for delete. I change my proposal to Keep ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 19:31, 27 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols of totalitarianism

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

This article is a WP:Coatrack and pure WP:Synthesis, just like Occupation symbols below. Nowhere is the topic of "Symbols of totalitarianism", also referring to the legal status of swastika and the hammer and sickle, analyzed as a topic by secondary sources, making it not notable as well. Article was created by User:Digwuren who has been banned for one year due to the EEML case. Anyway, deprodded by User:Sander Säde. Abductive (reasoning) 18:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. i would be utterly shocked if this isnt covered in great detail in the articles on stalinism and nazi germany. i see this as an inherently POV, horribly incomplete and poorly started stub article that could not be salvaged. only a BOOK called "symbols of totalitarianism, that cataloged symbols for various states through history, that was itself notable, could justify this article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or at best turn into a far more expansive list. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Indeed, looks like a a WP:Coatrack and WP:Synthesis vehicle. Nsk92 (talk) 10:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 03:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a prime example of WP:SYNTH and WP:COATRACK. The term "symbols of totalitarianism" does not exist or at least is not in general use, and it is WP:SYNTH to group these things under that name. Offliner (talk) 08:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Remember crossed hammers in The Wall, a clear reference to the totalitarian symbols? This is notable.Biophys (talk) 05:05, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree that it is WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:38, 31 December 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. Tone 16:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Occupation symbols

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

This article is a WP:Coatrack and pure WP:Synthesis. Nowhere is the topic of "Occupation symbols", referring to the legal status of swastika and the hammer and sickle and others such as the old Soviet Republic flags, analyzed as a topic by secondary sources, making it not notable as well. Article was created by User:Digwuren who has been banned for one year due to the EEML case, which I had managed to ignore until now. The term in Estonian is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, should anybody want to check for secondary sources by that. Anyway, deprodded by User:Sander Säde with the edit summary "rm prod, nonsense given as reason for prodding". Abductive (reasoning) 18:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The term in Estonian is Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, not "okupatsioonisümbolite". Plenty of newspaper sources for that. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL and Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL have loads of scholarly and book matches, many of them dedicated to the topic. Also, what has the creator of the article to do with deletion? --Sander Säde 20:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Okupatsioonisümbol" has only three Google News hits. The first two are articles about that statue that caused all that trouble, not about the term. The third is a blog. Okupatsioonisümbol has no Google Books or Scholar hits. This is consistent with my deletion argument that this term is not notable. Also, the article is a blatant coatrack, created for political or sentimental reasons, by a banned editor. I am unsure if all the prior contributions of an editor who was banned for less than eternity should be deleted under {{Db-g5}}, but this one comes close. Abductive (reasoning) 20:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are getting too fixated on editor and not the content. Perhaps you would like to go through hundreds of articles created by also banned Piotrus (talk · contribs) and delete all his GA and FA articles, too? In any case, it took me five minutes to find plenty of sources. Newspaper articles in Estonian: [8], [9], [10], [11]. It is not hard to find English sources as well, providing one is willing to look. --Sander Säde 08:57, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. term is nonotable, and is being used for nonencyclopedic purposes. all material better covered in other articles. any new articles on these symbols would need to be brought up at the main articles on them first.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please list these other articles so that we may compare them and consider them as a whole. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:56, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the reasons stated above. This is pure synthesis couched in a very thin attempt at NPOV and notability. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is the pure synthetic proposition which is being advanced? Please see the BBC article which indicates that the association of these symbols is no invention of ours and explain why we should not cover this notable topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is "we"? Hiberniantears (talk) 17:24, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You and I and the rest of the Wikipedia community. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Nsk92 (talk) 10:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The matter is highly notable and I had no difficulty finding a recent news source which comments extensively upon this topic following the recent passage of another law about this matter in Poland. The claims of synthesis seem weak and have not been raised as an issue at the article's talk page. Failure to resolve such issues at the article before bringing the matter here is contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it is worth, I would not have an issue with an article about each specific law. Hiberniantears (talk) 15:59, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason you had no problem finding sources is that the individual components of this article, the swastika and the hammer and sickle, are notable. The problem with this article is WP:Synthesis, which means that the topic is composed of parts which should not be brought together in the way the article does. Abductive (reasoning) 19:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should not? Whence comes this "should not"? Please see the BBC source cited, for example, which opens, "Lithuania's parliament has passed the toughest restrictions anywhere in the former Soviet Union on the public display of Soviet and Nazi symbols. It will now be an offence in the Baltic state to display the images of Soviet and Nazi leaders. This includes flags, emblems and badges carrying insignia, such as the hammer and sickle or swastika." It is apparent from this reliable source that the Lithuanian parliament brings these symbols together for legal purposes. This and other good sources indicate that other countries treat the matter in a similar way. It us not for us to gainsay this - we just report the plain facts. This is not in any way synthetic. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles on these topics. I find it to be a NPOV Coatrack, using Wikipedia to advance a particular interpretation of history in a WP:CFORK. The nazi and communist symbols are not generic "occupation symbols," that would be something more like one would see on propaganda posters depicting the jack-booted Huns from WWI, or nazi book-burnings, or cartoons of scallywags and carpetbaggers during Reconstruction. Doubtless you will add these to the article now. Abductive (reasoning) 22:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Abductive. Colonel Warden, you are correct that two symbols are being legislated against collectively. The overall logic that both items represent to Lithuanians symbols of forces that occupied Lithuania (or any other country concerned in this debate) is also correct. However, drawing these all together in an article called "Occupation symbols" is synthesis. The term "Occupation symbols" is extremely subjective, and from an encyclopedic point of of view would also include any symbol associated with any force that ever participated in anything considered an occupation by an organized group of people. In other words, if you're armed forces or police have ever taken action beyond your borders, someone probably considers them occupiers. In the case of this article, an incredibly broad term is narrowly focused on the symbols of just two actors in World War II.

Now, because there exists actual laws regarding fascist and Soviet symbols, articles about those specific laws would be entirely appropriate. Likewise, adding information within the articles of each symbol concerning laws that ban the symbol would also be entirely appropriate. The BBC source you keep citing is great, but it discusses the laws, not the concept of "Occupation Symbols". Hiberniantears (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are here to discuss the entirety of the article. The title is unimportant for this purpose as this may readily be changed by a move which is an ordinary edit not requiring deletion. The current title seems adequate for now, being a literal translation of the Estonian, okupatsioonisümbolite, as explained above. If there is any confusion in meaning then we may qualify or amend this as needed: "Prohibited symbols in Eastern Europe", for example. In any case, this is not a matter of synthesis but clarity. This is insufficient reason to delete. It seems that it is generally accepted that we have a valid topic here and the issue is one of presentation. AFD is not the correct forum for this - the matter should be adjourned to the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wile E. Heresiarch (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep very well referenced article. Per Colonel. Thanks. Ikip 11:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In essence, this isn't an article about the symbols; it is an article about the Baltic republic legislation. I'm not convinced that said legislation is notable enough to justify its own article, and I think the material could be put in articles about the soviet symbols in question. But in any case this is an article about one thing masquerading as an article about another. Mangoe (talk) 17:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is WP:SYNTH. There is no such thing as "occupation symbols", except in Baltic country legislation. For example, the chapter "European Union" is a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. The sources do not talk about "occupation symbols" but about the individual symbols, and grouping them under the made-up name "occupation symbols" is pure synthesis. Offliner (talk) 08:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain why we should not have an article about "Baltic country legislation" when the BBC and other international news organisations have multiple substantial articles about this topic. Is your opinion perhaps connected with your advocacy of Russia per the Russian Barnstar of National Merit found on your user page? Your failure to declare your conflict of interest seems to be a breach of WP:HONEST. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:04, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is enough to cover the bans of these symbols in their separate articles. The grouping of these symbols under the term "occupation symbols" is based on such an extremely weak criteria that this is not allowed per WP:SYNTH and WP:OR policy. Offliner (talk) 09:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What separate articles? The passage of laws in multiple countries grouping these symbols together is not a weak criterion as their passage involved parliamentary discussion, media commentary and international debate, all of which provide numerous sources and so great notability. The topic could hardly be stronger. To suggest otherwise seems to be denialism. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the bans should be discussed in the separate symbol articles, such as Swastika, etc. Offliner (talk) 10:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this will not do as it does not bring the matter together in the way that the laws and sources do. I have been studying the sources and currently have material for about 10 different articles but do not want to write these if they already exist. If this article is deleted then we will have articles about these laws in the various individual countries such as Estonia, Poland, Hungary, etc and notable cases such as the banning of the Stalinskaya trade mark, the appeal to the ECHR and so on. Per our editing policy, it seems best to develop the topic from this start and split as necessary but we can do it from the bottom up if needed. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, this is indeed a textbook example of WP:SYNTH. JBsupreme (talk) 20:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. Our definition of synthesis states it as "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. ". There is no such synthetic conclusion here. The principle claim of the article is that countries in Eastern Europe, such as Estonia and Poland, prohibit display of the political symbols of the countries which occupied them during the 20th century. Do you dispute this fact which is reported by reliable sources? Do you assert that the article necessarily makes some sythetic claim beyond this statement of fact. Please explain the synthesis as, per WP:VAGUEWAVE, an assertion which not supported by any evidence is of little value. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or possibly Rename. I agree that this is very WP:SYNTHy, and not really about the symbols themselves. An article regarding the laws in the Baltic countries which prohibit the display of these particular symbols could be valuable though, and this article might prove a good starting point for that. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. WP:SYNTH. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - individual articles already include information on the legal status of these symbols in the very few countries that prohibit them. _{Óðinn ☭☆ talk} 21:38, 31 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CodeBeamer (software)

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

I cannot find any significant coverage for this software product. Fails WP:GNG. Haakon (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 20:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep: Per below. Joe Chill (talk) 22:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep. ~~(for now)~~ The ddj award comes with a little review. Also, this seems academic software, mentioned quite a little in publications: [12] [13]. Pcap ping 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reviewed in depth here (toc), which is a heise.de publication. Pcap ping 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources are good enough. Rkr1991 ^{(Wanna chat?)} 14:13, 30 December 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.

Amy Pond

The result was Keep. Thanks to Cirt (talk · contribs), the article now meets the guidelines, so the grounds for deletion are no longer present. I kindly want to remind folks that AfDs are not ment as a means to improve articles. — Edokter • Talk • 01:58, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable character who does not appear on screen until Spring of next year, therefore violation WP:CRYSTAL. Re-create closer to the time if the character does indeed become notable. WossOccurring (talk) 18:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - obvious notability, as any companion of the Doctor. More than 60 % of the episodes of the season are already in the box, so the chances of this character being deleted are nought. In addition the character will probably been shown in the trailer at the end of the January 1st broadcast of the final Special. Hektor (talk) 18:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So which aspect of the general notability guideline do you feel this passes? WossOccurring (talk) 18:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One of the two main characters (the Doctor and the Companion) of the highest profile television show in Great-Britain. Hektor (talk) 18:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please name the aspect of THIS document that the article passes. WossOccurring (talk) 18:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a private conversation between the two of us, this is a deletion review. I have said enough. Amy Pond has received significant coverage from mainstream British media when the selection of Karen Gillan was announced. Since most of the shooting has been completed (which has also been covered in British mainstream media), the notability of this character does not violate WP:CRYSTAL as you incorrectly stated. Even if Karen Gillan was leaving the show today for whatever reason, the amount of material already shot guarantees that this character would not be deleted. Hektor (talk) 18:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One primary source does not satisfy the general notability guide. And I am not attempting to engage in a personal conversation; I am trying to rebuke your argument which reeks of WP:ILIKEIT due to your first comment and past history in editing Doctor Who-related articles. WossOccurring (talk) 18:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Won't be seen until later this year, and the article is merely a sentence long. Should probably just be added to the Companion page until information becomes available. Ω phois 19:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Hektor. There was much news coverage of the character's casting, back in May [?]. ╟─Treasury Tag►quaestor─╢ 19:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If there was so much news coverage, then why is none of it in the article? Ω phois 19:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, I didn't write the article. But if you doubt that it exists, just look for it – as you could easily have done before. ╟─Treasury Tag►secretariat─╢ 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Hektor, even though the series hasn't started yet, it's been announced who is playing who, we've got a page for the Eleventh Doctor, and that one stayed even with a handful of citations. I'm sure there will be more reports in the newspapers and such closer to the time. SimonD (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eleventh Doctor stayed because it's an actual article. This article is merely one sentence, and offers no other information than that she will be a companion. Ω phois 19:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion should be based on subject, not on content. Hektor (talk) 19:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There's enough on google news to pass the GNG with respect to casting, and tons more to come. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 19:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am seeing good coverage in independent reliable secondary sources. Also, if needed we can get the Eleventh Doctor to use the TARDIS to time travel for additional coverage. :P Cirt (talk) 19:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. BBC + Guardian = 2 external sources. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC is a primary source. WossOccurring (talk) 19:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, BBC News, as a source, is considered independently of other arms of the BBC. As in, Doctor Who is produced by BBC Wales, and any BBC News reports on it are considered to be reliable and secondary. Or something. ╟─Treasury Tag►sheriff─╢ 23:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If it's a new character, it has to start somewhere, and it's likely the article will grow over time, so deleting it is pointless. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karen Gillan. I don't think this deserves two articles upon a mere announcement of the part. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 20:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above other editors reasons to keep. Pro66 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Karen Gillan: at this time, I do not see sufficient content for an Amy Pond article separate from a Karen Gillan article. There is little in the current Amy Pond article that isn't also in the Gillan article. The sources given above are generally more about Gillan than about the character. Bondegezou (talk) 20:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reliably sourced by multiple independent sources. As said article was created (and expanded) after the character's official announcement, WP:CRYSTAL is not an issue here. --Madchester (talk) 21:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 21:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. Article has been vastly improved since the afd started. And it seems like its a white christmas in here. Umbralcorax (talk) 21:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: good improvement, article will no doubt gather more material, but there's enough there already to keep. WP:CRYSTAL doesn't seem to be an issue - nominator is perhaps unaware that in the UK we tend to shoot whole seasons in one go, prior to airing the first episode.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I have done some research, and improved upon the article. It is in an improved state of quality as compared to when it was originally nominated. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 21:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the frankly fantastic job Cirt did updating and expanding the article--Jac16888 ^Talk 23:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and WP:GNG, bypassing WP:CRYSTAL. Bearian (talk) 01:11, 26 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tubbies, Severn Beach

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

non-notable, seems to be a burger bar with a children's play area outside, not an amusement park. And totally uncited. Rapido (talk) 17:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Never heard of it, never seen it mentioned in the local paper. Totally unnotable. Martin451 (talk) 20:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this play area. Joe Chill (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close to zero coverage. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:RS. Warrah (talk) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack of notability. MilborneOne (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would argue that although this particular site is not notable, it has its place in social history. I can see no harm having an article that provides an example of British seaside tourism at the turn of the century. Agreed, the article needs a bit of work with citations etc. This specific site may be one of many in the country, none are likely to be notable enough to qualify for a Wikipedia article. However, if they are not allowed an article, then they will be lost forever. SpikeTheSpider (talk) 00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're worried about things being "lost forever", have a look at WP:ALTOUT for other wikis that accept articles like this. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 10:23, 29 December 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.

Tahir Abbas

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:52, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Laureano Márquez

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

Article does not establish notability V. Joe (talk) 07:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Venezuela-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Another editor, Malcolmxl5 (talk • contribs • count), has added references and expanded the article, and notability now seems clear. - Eastmain (talk) 21:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, sources used in the article would appear to indicate notability. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources in article, sufficient to establish notability. --Mkativerata (talk) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The only content is that he was fined, and this is WP:NOTNEWS and the story had no lasting effects, and not reported on by the broad media. That aside it fails WP:BLP on almost every level. Mkdw ^talk 00:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, per Lankiveil. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability seems clear. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability is very obvious to anyone fluent in Spanish language who has had the chance to read, watch, or hear Mr. Márquez. The article, if given enough time, will very probably grow to sufficient dimensions attesting his notability --but only if left alone (that is, not destroyed) by someone with dubious motives. In other words, is Wikipedia an universal encyclopedia, or just a national reference at the service of U.S. values alone? --AVM (talk) 23:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He Saifei

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

Has been in 10 films according to IMDB entry, but I am not sure that the films are themselves sufficiently notable (and therefore would give her notability that way). The article itself does not show sufficient notability, I think. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 17:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 1 of the points that the article tried really hard to make is that the actress was in Ang Lee's Lust, Caution. Well, after doing some research, her role in the movie was minor at best. In the movie, she played as "萧太太" (Mrs. 萧), her total air time was less than 15mins. She is a regular Chinese actress, that's all. WP:N has not be established. TheAsianGURU (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her roles in Raise the Red Lantern and Temptress Moon are not minor. WP:N has be established. --Pengyanan (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 00:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Her name appears in thousands of different headlines in Google News Search. [14]. Prima facie evidence of non-trivial coverage in WP:RS required by WP:N.

And furthermore the nominator needs to review WP:BEFORE. Every time he finds a China-related WP:STUB that's not in his pet area of ancient Chinese history, he runs to AfD without being bothered to perform even the most cursory search for sources. Non-Chinese-speaking editors take it on good faith that because he speaks Chinese, he might have actually been bothered to look for sources in Chinese prior to AfD ... which clearly has not happened here or in dozens of other cases. cab (talk) 03:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per cab above. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per cab. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 14:21, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- This nominator has consistently failed to perform due diligence and conduct proper web-searches prior to their nominations. See: Wang Jiancheng and Li Jianying. Geo Swan (talk) 05:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Montenegro Airlines. The list is not so long that it would need a separate article. Tone 16:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Montenegro Airlines destinations

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

Wikipedia is not a directory but this is article is nothing but a directory - of destinations served by a particular airline. Created to "move from main article", but it's such a short list that seems unneccessary. Also has no context or content other than links so speedy deletable on two counts, but I'm assuming context will follow. I42 (talk) 17:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As already explained, all airlines that fly to more than 10 destinations have dedicated destinations articles; this one is no exception. Please refer to the project guidelines at WP:Airlines before nominating this for deletion for a third time. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 17:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Jasepl. --Nlu (talk) 17:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge back into Montenegro Airlines. The main article and this destinations article are not so long that they need to be separate. Contrary to Jasepl, Wikipedia:WikiProject Airlines/page content says, "Once an airline has more then 10 destinations, especially international ones, they could be listed in a stand alone article." (Emphasis added.) "Could", not "must". Anyway, even if it did say "must", that would not be binding on the community at AfD. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree that the guidelines say "could". However, refer here and you will find a large number of articles that will meet the delete-and-merge-back criteria that you explained above. And it would be perfectly fine to merge the Montenegro Airlines destinations article back into the main article, if the same thing were done for all of the other similar articles. Why selectively treat one article differently than another? Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I have no idea what Jasepl means by "nominating this for deletion for a third time". Montenegro Airlines destinations has not existed long enough to have been nominated for deletion before this first time. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I42 attempted a speedy delete before listing it here. Jasepl (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - To be pedantic, it was a PROD nomination. I42 (talk) 17:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Just because other articles exist, for airline destinations, does not mean that it has to be done. There is no inherent right of existence for any such article. Forseeably, this one can improve, and maybe it was nominated too quickly. However, this is nothing more than an indiscriminate list of airports, and its only source is a broken link, so I have no way to verify it. The content can be summarized in a single paragraph-- "Montenegro Airlines has service to airports in Austria (Vienna), Croatia (Zagreb), Denmark (Copenhagen), France (Paris), Germany (Dusseldorf and Frankfurt), Italy (Milan and Rome), Macedonia (Skopje), Montenegro (Podgorica and Tivat), Russia (Moscow and St. Petersburg), Serbia (Belgrade, Nis, and Pristina), Slovenia (Ljubljana), Switzerland (Zurich), and the United Kingdom (London Gatwick Airport)." Throw in a link for people who want to know such things as flight times and numbers, and one will have improved the article about the airline. This article is essentially uninformative and tells us zero about Montenegro Airlines itself. The only arguments for keep appear to be that it's an honor of some sort if an airline has its own Wikipedia article about its destinations. Believe me, it isn't. Mandsford (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, consensus has been reached at WP:Airlines that a suitable length for a destination list article is at least ten destinations, particularly if these are in multiple countries. I counted nineteen in a dozen countries, so this article should be well over the limit. See for instance Braathens destinations for how such an article would look when it is near the quality of a featured list nomination. As with all lists, the bare structure often looks minimal, but when a relevant framework and formatting is established, it is suitable as a stand-alone article. But just like stubs, we dont' delete them just because they currently are not full length. The information can easily be confirmed at the company's web site, so the issue of non-references not important, although it would be much preferred if references were added. If there is disagreement about the consensus at the wikiproject, it would probably be better to discuss there to see if the community consensus for such an article has changed. This was established a number of years ago after a community-wide discussion of the nature and need for destination lists (that in participation went far beyond active members of WP:Airlines). Arsenikk ^(talk) 19:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If an Elvis Presley project decided to create an article on every Elvis tribute act, that would not supercede the requirement that each separate article met WP:N and WP:MUSIC - no project can override the wider Wikipedia consensus. So I think for the purpose of this AfD we must ignore the Airlines project and consider whether the article meets general Wikipedia policy alone. If the conclusion is that it does not then the Airlines project needs to re-examine its objectives because, as is noted above, the are many articles very much like this one which have been created because of it. I42 (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We have lists of destinations for lots of airlines, and this airline's list of destinations is long enough. --Footyfanatic3000 ^{(talk · contribs)} 12:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back into Montenegro Airlines with a redirect. By the WP:SIZE guideline, this list can be put back into the article about the airline without causing readability issues. When the main article gets long enough to warrant a split, then this list should have its own article. There is enough clean up needed for this airline that the WikiProject should consider keeping it as a single article. (For instance, the article map shows flights to South America even though the official website and the list article do not show flights there.) Concentrating on one article (until size warrants a split) will make it easier to keep the information up to date. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 15:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

T. Tony Cai

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

Is this professor sufficiently notable? He won what appeared to be a notable award (COPSS Presidents' Award), but the winners of that award largely don't have articles. I see no other indicator of notability. Delete. --Nlu (talk) 16:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and please close this one quickly. A named chair holder at a major research university (WP:PROF, #5), an editorial board member Annals of Statistics (probably the number one journal in the discipline), an editorial board member of a bunch of other journals and publications, plus the 2008 COPSS Presidents' Award is plenty enough for passing WP:PROF. In fact, according to his webpage (which seems to be confirmed by the journal's website[15]), starting in 2010 he will move from being an Associate Editor to one of the two Editors of Annals of Statistics. Let me quote from the COPSS Presidents' Award citation[16]:For fundamental and wide-ranging contributions to the mathematics, theory and methods of statistics, including the theory and application of wavelets, block thresholding in wavelet regression, optimality theory, adaptation in nonparametric function estimation, confidence intervals in small samples, and methods for false discovery rate control; for applications to chemical identification, medical imaging and microarray data analysis; and for outstanding contributions to the statistical profession through extensive editorial work and mentorship of students. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, here is an election citation when he was elected in 2006 as a Fellow of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics [17]:for pioneering contributions to the theory and practice of nonparametric function estimation; for the introduction of innovative blockthresholding schemes; and for important contributions to the theory of adaptive inference. Nsk92 (talk) 22:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In addition to the above, subject has good GS cites. I note that the nominator claims to be a lawyer but makes no claim to be a mathematician. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:PROF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Obvious pass of WP:PROF #5, probable pass of #3, and (with three papers of 100+ citations in Google scholar) a good case for #1 as well. Only a single criterion is needed for a keep. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. But the article could be WP:BETTER if it had a paragraph on his research with some links out to the relevant pages within wikipedia. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep. The above facts confirm notability beyond doubt. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 17:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The first thing that struck me when I saw this listed on the math WikiProject's "current activities" page as being listed for deletion, is that I recognize the name Tony Cai. Anyway, this person appears to meet WP:PROF #5. Hence, keep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael Hardy (talk • contribs)
Keep - has at least one paper of many good citations in Google scholar. --DoNotTellDoNotAsk (talk) 00:49, 27 December 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. Valid points have been made here that this case had no lasting impact; but equally there is a good argument that it passes the notability threshold anyway through sufficient coverage in multiple reliable sources. I personally find merit in the argument that this could possibly be better portrayed via a merge to Tiger Management, but there is certainly no consensus here to delete this or to impose a merge. ~ mazca ^talk 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard

NOTE: this AfD was started by a userid who is now indefinitely blocked. However, it's in my view still an AfD that's worth running to conclusion, and therefore I choose to stand behind the edit that started the AfD even if I personally may not agree with the reasons offered for deletion. Determining if the article documents a notable event will be useful. ++Lar: t/c 05:49, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Fails WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE: Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued. Much of article consists of padding, down to the index number, synthesis. Classic WP:MASK, even after some paring down. Wikipedia is not a compendium of trivial lawsuits. Compare this rubbish to articles on notable lawsuits such as the "hot coffee case," Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants. JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC) [reply]

Delete per my nom. Article goes into minute detail on a lawsuit filed twelve years ago that was withdrawn some months later and established no legal precedent. Nothing in Google. Media coverage does not establish notability. Fails WP:PERSISTENCE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." Also fails WP:EFFECT, which says "Events are often considered to be notable if they act as a precedent or catalyst for something else." In this case a suit was filed and withdrawn. The lawsuit was not catalyst for anything, as best as I can tell, and there is no connction shown between the statute enacted in the "aftermath" section and the lawsuit. The testimony quoted in that section was given before the suit was filed, and the quotation from Shepard in that section does not mention the lawsuit. I've tried to deal with some of this article's multiple issues, removing some of the worst irrelevancies such as odd references to recent Bloomberg takeover of the magazine, but overriding notability issue remains.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 16:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your arguments do not change the fact that The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine all wrote articles on this suit. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Economist piece doesn't discuss the suit at all (I just checked it), so you might want to strike that one. Franamax (talk) 23:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - And others, see below. Cool Hand Luke 08:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Coverage of the suit at the time is of no consequence. See WP:PERSISTENCE: "Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article." The article is so grotesquely padded with legal technicalities that one loses site of the fact that it had no impact. To artificially construct impact, the article incorporated in the "aftermath" section testimony given by a McGraw Hill official before the suit was filed, and a law that was passed in October 2008! The rest is how the fund went out of business. As a legal case it was a nonevent.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your claims do not change the fact that Economist, Library Journal, Technology Review, and Business Week did not mention the lawsuit (and you clearly didn't even bother to check). Nor does it change the fact that all of the coverage is fleeting (see WP:NOTNEWS), and much of it is trivial (two sentences in an article or so). There are a handful of articles announcing the filing of the suit, and there are some that speculate that it might answer a novel legal question (it didn't because it settled for $0). This sort of coverage is not notable, and much of the material really belongs in Tiger Management, which could certainly use more work. I do not believe there is independent notability for this suit. Cool Hand Luke 08:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As the sources indicate, the suit was notable for two reasons: (1) it was the first time that a court case had examined the issue of electronic vs print publishing, and (2) the unprecedented size of the damages demand was noted by the media and watched with concern by the publishing industry. Please note that the nominator drastically reduced the length of the article's lede, among other removals of article text, categories, and links to it from other articles, without discussion after nominating it for deletion. I've invited participation in this discussion from several related wikiprojects, including one that the nominator is an active member of [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Cla68 (talk) 22:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Cla68's first argument is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did. THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But it's misleading to say that this was the first time a court had "examined" an issue. "Examined" implies that a ruling was issue. What your padded article obscures through sheer WP:LARD is that no rulings of any kind were issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - WP:LARD is an essay, heavily self promoted by the creator, as per the tag on top, "This essay contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." Ikip 17:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1 & 2 would matter if the suit hadn't been settled before trial without payment of a nickel, and if it had resulted in legal precedent, which it didn't. The demand in a lawsuit is meaningless. I could sue my dry cleaner tomorrow for $1 trillion. By the way, the suit against Dow Jones that *did* result in a massive verdict isn't significant enough to have an article of its own. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who said that the lawsuit against Dow Jones isn't significant enough to have an article of its own? This article laid fallow for five years simply because, it appears, no one was willing or able to go and get the sources needed to develop it. Cla68 (talk) 09:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I notice that you drastically shortened the intro again. Why would you make such a drastic change to the article while it's undergoing AfD? Cla68 (talk) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~It's routine to edit articles that are nominated for deletion, sometimes drastically, sometimes even to stubbify them if necessary.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

If necessary being the operative phrase. Your hatchet job is not necessary, and needs reverting. ++Lar: t/c 14:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have anything of substance to say on my edits, you should say so on the talk page. As of this moment, all you've done is engaged in personal attacks. I've asked for editing help from the relevant wikiprojeccts, particularly Wikiproject Law. That's not a complete waste of time if this article is deleted, because a discussion is underway about possible other articles that may be created.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy keep~~ - WP:POINTy nomination by someone who many folk think might be Gary Weiss himself, or someone closely allied with him, (although multiple attempts to determine this one way or the other conclusively have so far been unsuccessful, as some people do learn how to sock better with practice). The nomination has no real basis in fact. The lawsuit was an important one, and it is possible that it lead directly to significant changes in law. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Change my view to keep... enough reasons exist to run this through to conclusion that I no longer think a speedy is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 05:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I express no opinion on this nomination at this time, but I think it's unlikely that this lawsuit led to much of anything. It wasn't even settled for nuisance value ($0), and it produced no legal precedent whatsoever. That said, there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources. Cool Hand Luke 23:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Do you think that perhaps the article should be renamed "Fall of the Wizard" and focus on Weiss' original article and the reaction in the media and by others to it, including the lawsuit? The reaction to the article in the finance and publishing communities does appear to be noteworthy, judging by the sources involved. Cla68 (talk) 03:55, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If Lar is going to make accusations that might influence the course of this AfD then (s)he should provide evidence. Who are these "many folk" who think that the nominator is a puppet and where has this been debated? As it happens I agree with the nomination - lawsuits like this are ten a penny. I don't know any of the parties here but something is obviously going on. andy (talk) 00:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Eh, what's going on is obvious ("well poisoning"). Let's keep this focused on the notability of the article.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 03:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

The article's plenty notable, and was a very well written work, before you started hacking away at it. Your issue with the article, I suspect, is that it's not uniformly positive about Gary Weiss and doesn't hew your party line. Notability is just what you happened to latch onto as a way to remove it. You have a long history of trying to POV push anything related to Gary Weiss, as a review of your contributions to Naked Short Selling, Overstock.com, Patrick Byrne et al will reveal. That's all the evidence an interested participant would need to draw the conclusion that it's likely you are Gary, or a close ally of his. You're clever enough to have organized your affairs so that an SPI would be a waste of time but the circumstantial evidence is strong. That's not well poisoning, that's disclosing your COI. ++Lar: t/c 14:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from "plenty notable," do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion other than personal attacks? Can you address the notability issue? Thanks, --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, the article presents a BLP issue for Robertson, not Weiss. It of necessity dredges up the long-forgotten allegations in "Fall of the Wizard," which are extremely negative to Robertson. I'm not faulting the author of the Wiki article for that, it's just inevitable were the article to be kept. I don't see a BLP issue for Weiss and I haven't raised that issue. I've raised notability issues, and I see that two editors appear to agree with me at this early stage. Do you have anything to say on the substance of this AfD, or are you going to restrict your comments here to attacking me?--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:45, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your COI is relevant to this, regardless of how you try to spin away from it. ++Lar: t/c 15:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"My COI" is nonexistent. I could make an immense fuss about the author of this article along similar lines, but it just isn't relevant or helpful, and it doesn't belong here. You're attacking me in this discussion is

disruptive and needs to stop. Even if I were Weiss, Robertson or Shepard, and I'm not either of those gents, this AfD would need to be determined on whether it meets notability standards. You can run but you can't hide from that. I'm surprised an administrator hasn't come along to redact your comments. No, actually I'm not surprised. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be interested in knowing what COI you think Cla has... and if you would be proved to have a COI, this would be viewed as a bad-faith nom, which could—and probably would—have a huge effect on the outcome of this AfD. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is precisely my point: this AfD has been poisoned by Lar's accusations. What's done is done. I can only hope that the closing administrator takes it into account.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If we included every trivial case like this wikipedia would fill up in a week. It has nothing of any encyclopaedic value whatsoever. andy (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment - should we then lose all the rediculous amime stuff? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF --Aka042 (talk) 18:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep - modest encyclopedic value, and the electrons used don't take up that much space. i.e., notable enough. Does the article need work? sure. is it somewhat unflatering to its subjects, sure. but both of those are not reasons for deletion. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 03:31, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Once the WP:SYN and WP:LARD is removed, and once the material that should be in Tiger Management is moved there, there's nothing left worthy of an independent article. Any RS'd content can be included in Tiger Management without loss to the project. THF (talk) 20:38, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I find Cla68's argument concerning the "electronic vs print publishing" issue compelling. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cla68. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 01:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cla68's reasoning. ArcAngel (talk) 02:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. Cla68's first argument about "electronic vs print publishing" is factually false. The court never considered or ruled on the issue; the case settled before it did. THF (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The court did consider the issue, but the case was settled before the court could issue a decision. The looming court decision on the motion likely had an effect on the parties decision to settle, but that's up to the reader to decide. Cla68 (talk) 10:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Your missing the point. You say that this was the first time a court had ever "examined" the issue, and THF is right that this is just factually wrong. No opinion was issued, so the court never "examined" it. For all we know, the judge may have felt the motion was out of order or something and decided not to examine it. We'll never know as no opinion was issued. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wow. I see that nothing has changed since I last dipped my toe in the Overstock waters approximately eighteen months ago[23]. I see that everything related to Overstock, Patrick Byrne or Gary Weiss always results in lively and heated discussion and off-wiki attention. I'll repeat what I said in an earlier context of the Overstock investigation, after I finally got an administrator's attention to deal with the end of that affair. A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that. Assuming that is correct, I think it's time to put this one out of its misery. I know there's ill feeling toward Weiss. That's apparent from the comments. But we shouldn't be venting that by creating dubious articles on every legal scrape he's been in.Stetsonharry (talk) 04:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Notability#Notability_is_not_temporary which makes these sentences incorrect: "A lawsuit or investigation that is settled, as this one is or as the Overstock one is, no longer has any relevancy and shouldn't be in the encyclopedia. The details of the investigation, like the details of the suit here, are "no longer relevant." RE: "It's been asserted that there was no legal precedent, and I see no response to that." There is no requirement that their be "legal precedence", the only requirement is that the page meet notability guidelines, which it overwhelmingly does. Ikip 17:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Quite an opera here since I last looked in. On your points: true about notability not temporary, but the Overstock investigation was removed on the basis of it no longer having any lasting impact. That seems to be parallel here, along with the striking personnel similarities. Stetsonharry (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the fact that $8 billion flowed into and grew within Tiger Management during the year of the lawsuit. If that is not a palpable enough indicator of the importance of the suit itself in fighting back the arrogance of the publisher of the defamatory and sloppy journalism, I don't know what would be. Wikipedia should not be sweeping under the rug important events having $8 billion hanging in the balance. This is a well-written article, and its deletion would highlight an embarrassing agenda that runs counter to a freely-licensed encyclopedia. -- Cool3 (talk) 05:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Huh? On the contrary, the cash inflow indicates that the lawsuit was of zero importance. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

What concerns me so much about this AFD, which is now spilling over to ANI, is that volunteer editors with no credentials are second guessing real journalists such as The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review. Library Journal and Fortune magazine. Some how, all of these journalists found that this story was relavant and notable, but 3 or 4 wikipedia volunteer editors WP:Wikilawyer that this article doesn't belong on wikipedia. Ikip 17:56, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed that above. See WP:PERSISTENCE. I know, it's just a notability guideline. But it's supposed to guide this discussion. Also it was previously pointed out that the Economist and Library Journal don't mention this lawsuit. We're not substituting our judgment for anybody, we're just applying the notbility guideline, which could not be more clear. Of the publications that actually did mention the suit, all did so at the time of the suit or after its withdrawal.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 00:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per THF. I think Lar's suspicions may be correct, but the possible involvement of a subject does not somehow make the article more notable. It's a suit with no opinions that settled for a whopping $0. There are some sources about the case, but these suits are not rare, and reports of high damages demands do not make it notable. Cool Hand Luke 12:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep If any one AFD can show that our rules are out of control, and that anyone can find a reason to delete anything, it would be this AFD. This is the first time I have ever heard such obscure rules as WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE, but somehow, editors are trying to argue that these obscure rules trump reliable sources, a rule which everyone knows about, and which Cool Hand Luke himself acknowledges, "there does seem to be a handful of quality independent sources". Very well referenced article. Ikip 17:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? WP:EFFECT and WP:PERSISTENCE aren't "obscure rules" - they're shortcuts to Wikipedia:Notability (events) which is a key WP guideline! So yes, they may well trump rules "which everyone knows about". I don't care a hoot if it's deleted or not (I think it should be but I won't weep either way) but to argue about whether Notability trumps Reliable Sources is weird! andy (talk) 18:43, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A handful of reliable sources with less extensive coverage than this article would suggest. Much of it should certainly go to Tiger Management, but there is not much to show the suit is independently notable from the fund, as our policies require. At any rate, this AFD is hash anyway; not surprising given that the nominator is widely believed to have a conflict of interest. I recognize that problem, but still honestly believe this suit falls on the far side of notability. Cool Hand Luke 20:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. The atmosphere of this AfD has been completely poisoned. I hope the closing administrator is prepared to enforce policies rather than to just blindly treat this as a "vote." The vast majority of the "keep" votes at this time don't even attempt to address the applicable notability standard. This is the kind of article (and AfD) that brings Wikipedia into disrepute. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the Talk:Gary Weiss, Talk:BusinessWeek, Talk:Tiger Management, Talk:McGraw-Hill page(s) which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - it's not the easiest thing to have a topic covered by all of these individual, independent, reliable sources: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, Associated Press, Economist, Mediaweek, Wall Street Journal, Technology Review, Library Journal and Fortune. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Library Journal does not cover this lawsuit in the reference cited - which you can find here. andy (talk) 20:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, and I have struck the journal above. However, that doesn't change the fact that eight different organizations, all reliable sources, have covered this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've obviously not actually looked at any of the sources. Many are simply about Tiger Management and only devote two sentences to this lawsuit. The Economist article doesn't appear to cover it at all. Look, I get that this may be a COI AFD nomination, but that doesn't mean our rules should take a holiday. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That'll teach me to be swayed by what others say above and then use it for my argument. I've struck, but whether that changes my !vote or not is a question for tomorrow when I get back to the computer. Thanks for the comments, andy and CHL. My apologies, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 08:22, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - if we were simply an encyclopaedia of legal cases then I could see the logic of "Lawsuit filed, lawsuit withdrawn. No legal opinions issued" as an argument for deletion, as no legal precedent has been set. However we are a general interest encyclopaedia, and therefore I see no problem in our finding space for information as widely covered as this. Ϣere SpielChequers 21:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Appears to be quite notable per substantial coverage in reliable sources. A case doesn't have to be decided to be notable. How best to include the information is another issue, but I don't see a lack of sourcing or notability in this instance. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of notable external content to work with here, and that says something, even if the case wasn't typical. Doc Quintana (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CoM and WereSpielChequers.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for basically two reasons: I find Cla68 and Lar's reasoning most compelling; to a lesser extent, it seems that the nomination itself was quite POINT-y, given that the nominator first shaved the article lede quite substantially. Unit Anode 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - It appears quite notable per coverage of reliable sources and the fact that the nominator was indefinitely blocked. December21st2012Freak ^{Happy New Year!} at ≈ 00:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The fact that the nom was indef blocked, while validating the concerns I had about the reason it was nominated in the first place, isn't relevant any more as other established users have identified issues they find concerning about the notabiity of the article. That's why I chose to stand behind the nom. ++Lar: t/c 02:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, clearly notable based on widespread coverage in published sources. Everyking (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note I struck the indefinetly banned user's comments, as is custom. Ikip 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I read about this article at Wikipedia Review, where there is quite a discussion going on, lead by cla68 and Judd Bagley of Overstock.com. Evidently this is the latest artillery shell to be lobbed in the ongoing battle between Overstock.com and its allies and Mr. Weiss. That might explain why there are so many editors here ignoring established site policies, so as to vote "keep" for an article of no merit whatsoever. --AmishPete (talk) 22:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— AmishPete (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Ikip 22:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but a scalpel may be useful too. Other than this being an outpost for one of the all-time epic wiki-wars, I would judge any lawsuit article by how it changed the world. One way is through a novel decision, especially one that sets precedent. Another way is through the effect of a lawsuit on public attitudes, corporate conduct, etc. I'm swayed by the NY Times saying "This appears to be the first case in which the publication rule has been applied to a magazine that was initially published electronically". Aside from the lesson of don't wait 'til the last day to file your suit, which we all learned with school assignments, this looks like a novel "gotcha" and is worthy of reporting here. That said, the article has a whole lot of puff, but I'll take that up elsewhere. Franamax (talk) 02:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial, No legal principles involved, since it was settled out of court. The question of publication date was decided later by statute, not by this case. If the case had been decided on that basis then it would been a precedent, at least in a popular sense. That a motion was made is not a precedent, either in technical or common use. It was not even ruled on, even in a preliminary way. Though it was said by "Floyd Adams, a First Amendment lawyer representing BusinessWeek, “This will be the first case in which the courts address the impact of a publication appearing on the Net rather than on paper" "-- his prediction turned out to be wrong--the courts did not address the issue, or even have the opportunity to do so. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've cited no actual policies in support of your recommendation. Calling it "trivial" is simply not a sound reason for deletion. It's well-sourced and notable in its own right. It's a bit of a marginal topic, but since this encyclopedia isn't made of paper, that doesn't matter nearly as much. Unit Anode 05:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For something trivial, there sure are a lot of published sources about it... Everyking (talk) 05:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you specify which exact published sources are about "it"? I know for sure that at least one source doesn't mention the suit at all, it just backs up mundane facts. Franamax (talk) 05:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources specifically mention the suit:
Associated Press (November 4, 1997). "Digital, corner newsstands go head-to-head: Question of timing in magazine publishing goes to court". The Fresno Bee. p. D14.
Garigliano, Jeff (June 1, 1997). "Steep libel claims raise concerns". Folio: The Magazine for Magazine Management. Cowles Business Media Inc. p. 19.
Kelly, Keith J. (December 18, 1997). "Money Aside, Manager Settles Suit". New York Daily News. p. 78.
New York Times (January 7, 1997). "Corrections".
Reilly, Patrick M. (April 4, 1997). "Investor files papers signaling intent to sue Business Week for $1 billion". Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones.
Wall Street Journal (December 18, 1997). "Business Week Agrees to Settle Libel Suit Brought by Investor". (Dow Jones).
Bumiller, Elisabeth (September 29, 1998). "Public Lives; Giving Out Millions While Losing Billions" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
New York Supreme Court (1997). "Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard" (Court filing). New York Unified Court System. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Oppel, Richard A., Jr. (December 19, 1999). "A Tiger Fights To Reclaim His Old Roar" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Pogrebin, Robin (November 3, 1997). "Publication Date Open to Dispute In Internet Age" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Truell, Peter (December 18, 1997). "The Media Business; Investor Settles Libel Suit Against Business Week" (Newspaper article). New York Times. Retrieved November 11, 2009.
Weiss, Gary (April 1, 1996). "Fall of the Wizard" (Magazine article). Business Week. McGraw-Hill. Retrieved November 11, 2009. (BusinessWeek's settlement statement is appended to the end of this article)

Cla68 (talk) 07:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that the Oppel article mentions that Robertson's suit has made people afraid to criticize him. I neglected to mention that in the article, but it probably should be. Again, this suit had a notable effect even though it wasn't decided in court. Cla68 (talk) 07:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The court filing and the original article with statement are not independent sources and cannot establishe notability. Several of the other sources (including the later two NYT articles) appear to mention the suit only in passing. This is especially striking in the 1999 article—it does a moderately long postmortem on Tiger Management and only devotes two sentences to the lawsuit. This suggests to me that the original nominator was likely correct—it lacks the ENDURANCE required to be considered an independently notable subject. See also NOTNEWS. Much of this material should go to the Tiger Management article, but the SYN at the end should be cut entirely. Cool Hand Luke 08:09, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of refs and this is quite interesting. NBeale (talk) 12:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those statements are true, but the nomination is not on the grounds that it's an uninteresting article. What do you think of the policy issues here? Is it notable? andy (talk) 12:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We don't create articles using some synthesis claims to notability to settle old wikipedia grudges.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 20:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable, based on all the press coverage that it received. The fact that it didn't actually end up in a courtroom, nor that the article could use some improving, is not really relevant in light of that fact. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Weak keep based on the sources provided, which to me indicate that it has been covered by enough third-party sources to merit inclusion. Some decent arguments from both sides (and a decent amount of poor arguments from both sides). I agree, however, that the fact that it wasn't decided doesn't really indicate that it is not notable, at least in my mind. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. In any case, this article is going to be kept. But with the number of outstanding "delete" votes, we can't be sure that they all want to change their opinion, so I'll just say NC to be safe. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jackass Number 3

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

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing but WP:OR - failed {{prod}} after sole author objected. Toddst1 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:CRYSTAL. Joe Chill (talk) 23:56, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:CRYSTAL. Apparently they plan to film this one in 3D. Once it's actually done, feel free to recreate the article with the film's actual name. Pburka (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not-quite-yet-ready for primetime. JBsupreme (talk) 04:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The film may become notable once it is released, but there is no evidence that the production of it has achieved notability. --RL0919 (talk) 05:21, 19 December 2009 (UTC) Moving to neutral since a number of sources have been added. Some of the coverage is marginal (e.g., MTV, which is not an independent source in this case), but the situation has improved enough to move me away from recommending deletion. --RL0919 (talk) 05:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Proposed title is actually Jackass 3D, and we can create it when it actually has more details than the equivalent of 'OMG did you see this Johnny and the gang is back EEEEEE!!' Nate • (chatter) 05:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Switch to Keep As I expected a windfall of sources came out this week and have been added to the article, so the standard of WP:N#FILMS has now been met. Great job on the rescue, Him6969etc... Nate • (chatter) 12:19, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom DRosin (talk) 22:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename Jackass 3D. Star of the movie confirmed its production.[24] According to moviefone, Paramount issued a press release that it will be released October 15, 2010.[25] MTV says the movie will be in 3D.[26] The BBC says the director has been doing camera tests.[27] Hence, many sources and confirmation about its production. See:(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added this information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with "Him69696969696969". The movie has been confirmed on the official jackass "blog" and by Paramount now. This is one of those cases where the nomination for deletion was valid when it was put forth, but the subject of the article has crossed the threshold for inclusion while the AfD was running. I urge the closing admin to take that into account and either relist this or just disregard earlier comments. Gigs (talk) 19:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom Shadowjams (talk) 11:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update in the last two days more information about its production has been released. I added some information to the article. Him69696969696969 (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 15:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment The article has been expanded with references. However, I am still having problems in deciding whether this makes it notable enough to bypass the CRYSTAL. --Tone 15:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to Him69696969696969's expansion. WossOccurring (talk) 18:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was nominated for deletion when it was in really bad shape, but has been expanded to show confirmation of this project with several news stories and coverage. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 05:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article now has reliable sources and meets all the requirements to be an article. Much improved from when it was listed. — Ocatecir ^T 01:30, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Jackass series. Doesn't meet WP:NFF but clearly being produced at this point. Merge to the series until it meets WP:NFF for a valid split. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are plenty of reliable sources on it now. --AW (talk) 06:48, 30 December 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 as copyright infringement. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Spice

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

non-notable pirate radio DJ, completely unreferenced Rapido (talk) 14:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I don't know, but I've definitley heard of this guy before, and I don't even listen to DJs.--Lionmadness (talk) 20:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:18, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And where have you looked for this "coverage"?--Lionmadness (talk) 21:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google, Google News, and Google Books. Joe Chill (talk) 21:29, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where have you looked? Answer: "Nowhere". Joe Chill (talk) 21:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)^{[citation needed]}[reply]

Have you got a source that proves that Lionmadness hasn't looked anywhere? Otherwise, don't make comments like that.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 21:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Mr Chill, I am looking for notable converage as we speak, thank you very much.--Lionmadness (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Chill should really be apologizing for that outburst. It really was unacceptable.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well Lionmadness did ask Joe Chill a little sarcastically about "coverage", before he stated whether he had looked for any himself! Rapido (talk) 23:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine to me. It just sounds like Lionmadness was interested in knowing where to look and there is nothing wrong with that, especially in an Afd discussion. I see nothing wrong with the edits of Lionmadness.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 23:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay AD, you don't need to worry about me, but it WAS quite offensive and is not really acceptable at all, particularly not in a discussion where particiapnts need to not throw stones. So yes, Joe Chill, you owe me an apology. You can apologize to me here.--Lionmadness (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies if I mis-assumed your comment was sarcastic. However, here should really be for debate about the AFD. Any personal correspondence, apologies or otherwise, should really take place in user talk pages. Rapido (talk) 00:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It did seem like it was meant in a rude way. Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apology accepted :)--Lionmadness (talk) 00:21, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is good to see that cleared up. Now can people please respect the WP:AGF policy in future and not accuse others of being sarcastic. That way, these problems wouldn't start in the first place.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:28, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google UK Search We are looking pretty good.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- None of those sources are significant coverage. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I'm having a very hard time finding any reliable sources about this DJ. I found one that has been clearly plagiarized, a word-for-word copy and paste of paragraph two, which alone would rate a copyvio. The whole article appears to be a crappy cut and paste job. Please delete ASAP and start over, folks. Bearian (talk) 00:50, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This quote: "I wanted to learn how the whole thing works from the artist to the label to the whole distribution side of things" seems to WP:OR that has been copied onto three other websites. Bearian (talk) 01:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is likewise a quote without any attribution, so it must be WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why speedy delete? Let this Afd run its course. There is far more concensus in support of keeping this article anyway.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 03:09, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs are based on guidelines so there is more support for deleting this article. Joe Chill (talk) 19:06, 26 December 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. Wizardman _{Help review good articles} 18:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Munhall

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

Non-notable career minor leaguer. Muboshgu (talk) 14:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Simply fails WP:Athlete. Shadowjams (talk) 13:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only source cited is a statistics site; doesn't meet notability criterion for minor league players/managers in WP:BASE/N. (Note that Wikipedia is not a directory.) BRMo (talk) 19:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks the necessary career achievements. Spanneraol (talk) 21:18, 29 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Kaleidoscope

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

non-notable pirate radio station; the references appear to be webpages written by involved parties, not media references Rapido (talk) 14:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 19:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this radio station. Joe Chill (talk) 20:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is a good one with an external link providing further information so it looks quite notable to me. Due to the nature of pirate radio stations, you can't expect them to shout about their activities from the roof tops can you? Therefore some information regarding them will remain unknown and so cannot be included in an article. --Cexycy (talk) 11:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - An external link doesn't automatically make an article notable! Your "shouting from the roof-tops" statement is irrelevent, as that is more a self-promotion issue, nothing to do with notability. Rapido (talk) 13:32, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - You are asking about notability, well here we have an external link (ie nothing to do with Wikipedia, therefore a viable back-up source) to support the contect of the article. The article itself is not very well written, but that can easily be improved at a later date as with any article. My statement about "shouting from the roof-tops" is only to point out that as a criminal activity, these pirate radio broadcasters want to make sure they ae not over exposed. If you look at the website you will see there are no landline 'phone numbers, only mobiles. There is also no postal address. In short if this is a pirate station, then there will obviously be few back up sources than normal, so proving notability will be harder. As this IS a radio station and Wikipedia is supposed to be unbiased, it would not be fair to delete this article. I'm sure you understand my point. --Cexycy (talk) 00:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as article fails to cross verifiability and notability thresholds due to lack of independent reliable sources. That a website exists for this admittedly criminal activity does nothing to prove that there is an actual pirate station nor that it has any notability outside the heads of its involved persons. WP has plenty of articles on notable pirate radio stations but, based on the lack of third-party coverage, this one does not make the grade. - Dravecky (talk) 08:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Cexycy makes an argument many do: that if sources don't exist for a subject (or type of subject) that associated articles should be kept anyway, just because it's unfair to ask for sources when there aren't any. This quaint POV has no basis in WP:V, the fundamental policy of the encyclopedia. To quote from it, "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." Period. RGTraynor 14:26, 27 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Lee

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

fails WP:ATHLETE. has not competed at the highest amateur swimming level which is FINA World Aquatics Championships not FINA World Cup which Felicia has competed in. simply being a member of the US National team squad does not guarantee notability. LibStar (talk) 12:04, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would argue that competing in even the Pan Pacific Swimming Championships would be enough. (NB:Please don't debate this here!) This young lady, however, as only competed in the junior version of the same. I firmly believe we will someday have an article about this young woman- but not yet. Delete. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 05:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:44, 31 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LuvFree.com

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

I can't find significant coverage for this dating website. It seems to fail WP:WEB. Tim Song (talk) 10:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this website. Joe Chill (talk) 20:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Plus it seems to be self-promotional. Search engines results don't qualify an inclusion in Wikipedia. --Scieberking (talk) 23:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:WEB. Majorly talk 02:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just promotional. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:51, 31 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmie Moore

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

Non-notable XBOX repairman with a YouTube channel. The article probably asserts enough notability to get past speedy, yet actually to my surprise searches like moore "xbox slave" return nothing genuine, and I can't find anything else that could establish his notability. Possible WP:ARTSPAM. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no indication that this Jimmie Moore is a notable person. --Vejvančický (talk) 08:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree. Fails in all aspects of WP:BIO Pleasantview (talk) 09:17, 25 December 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 Non-admin closure, Jimfbleak speedy deleted (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 13:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Salem Baida

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

I speedied this but am voluntarily converting it to an AfD because on reconsideration I guess it plausibly asserts some degree of notability in being a co-CEO of a media company with a notable rapper. However, I can't find any sources for the company "Salem International, Inc.," and am concerned it may be a WP:HOAX (see Google, for instance). There's a company with such a name (see [28]), but it's a Virgin Islands-based subsidiary of Salem Sportswear, Inc. Other searches that should turn up results don't. Searches like this one don't fill me with confidence that he's involved in a significant venture with the rapper Kurupt. There's a Blake Baida whose LinkedIn profile lists him as owning Salem International, and a few more unconvincing results if you search under "Blake Salem," but all in all he's certainly not notable, and I have to say it's possible that this article isn't entirely accurate. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious WP:Autobiography and WP:COI. Also doesn't fully establish WP:N (I think). --Bsa dow ski1 08:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How did I not notice the autobiography issue, which, you're right is completely obvious? Good catch. Glenfarclas (talk) 08:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been deleted. --Bsa dow ski1 08:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I think I put a little too much work into this AfD nom, oh well. Glenfarclas (talk) 09:00, 25 December 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 deleted by User:SouthernNights — æk ^Talk 02:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ehcp for Developers (php and html/css)

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Ehcp for Developers (php and html/css)

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

WP:NOT a guide for how to use a software. This was (according to Coren Search Bot) a transcription from a wiki on EHCP (like all the other random wikia type wikis). No statement of notability. Also included another article by same author that's the same. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC) ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 08:10, 25 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uma stone

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

Porn actress, does not meet WP:PORNBIO. Seems to have done some web stuff, but nothing catalogued at IAFD. Author contested PROD, and its username is the same as her the production company she's apparently affiliated with. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not encyclopedia worthy.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 00:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this pornographic actress. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:PORNBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:53, 31 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Healthcare and Pakistan

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

On one hand, I don't want to delete this article, rather have it rewritten as it is a notable topic. On the other hand, it is clearly a POV fork and not neutral, if it isn't someone's essay or dissertation. At the same time, this new editor published this very same (unchanged) article under "medical quackery in pakistan", which clearly states the point of view of this person. Lastly, the "reference" links to a healthcare providing website (which doesn't really back up the dissertation) riddled with "testimonials", so there's the possible connection of promotion. Either way though, this article's quality is severely atrocious and riddled with original research, and I am nominating it for deletion. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 07:10, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons well stated by the nominator; I had tagged this for speedy deletion as needlessly duplicating Health care in Pakistan, and Noian may well be right that that wasn't the best use of the tag (sorry). But to the extent this differs from the existing article, it differs in being (1) unnecessary, (2) unsourced, (3) an apparent POV fork, and (4) in general, "severely atrocious" as stated above. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to health care in Pakistan, of which it's an essay-like duplication (as noted by the above users). I think this could legitimately have been redirected rather than speedied. EALacey (talk) 07:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

True, and I've done that in other cases, but I hesitate because it basically amount to me unilaterally deleting the article with no admin oversight, and a ~~n00b~~ new editor may not know how to undo or contest it. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are reasonable points. EALacey (talk) 08:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. many problems with reliabilty of this article. LibStar (talk) 12:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced POV fork of Health care in Pakistan. The editors who created Healthcare and Pakistan and Health Care and Pakistan (an almost identical page, which I have redirected) had previously added the same link to Health care in Pakistan, but it was being reverted. snigbrook (talk) 14:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 03:02, 26 December 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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Daiu International

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

Does not state notability. Google news gives no hits. Listed to AfD instead of CSD because I'm not an expert on Japanese/International sites. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 06:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 6 google hits suggest this "international company" hasn't got very far yet. Polarpanda (talk) 10:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 21:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I believe this information on Daiu International, LLC is very useful to users who are interested in learning about the company. This international entity is fairly new and new information will be added as the website expands. I believe the content is suitable and a wonderful beginning for an elongated article with the years to come.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Destiny3005 (talk • contribs) 2009/12/26 01:21:04
Delete. I don't see any notability per WP standards here. Drmies (talk) 18:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unambiguous advertising: an American-based e-company with diverse cultural and linguistic services... the company incorporated a detailed forum and informative subpages... offers great linguistic tools to students of the Japanese language. The company also promotes cultural diversity and environmental sustainability..... becomes one step closer to providing the most detailed and user-friendly package.... "E-company"??? Give me a break. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the three preceding !votes are from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daiu International, LLC TheWeakWilled (T * G) 13:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources, non-notable, reads like an ad. Google search finds only their own website and this Wikipedia page. The company is only a year and a half old. If it grows and becomes more notable (i.e. recognized by outside sources) in the future it could be recreated then. But for now it doesn't meet WP standards. (BTW the article says it is an American-based company but the only category listed is "Companies of Japan"; what's up with that?) --MelanieN (talk) 03:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)MelanieN[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. or "nomination withdrawn". Pick one. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 23:55, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insufflation (medicine)

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

The word 'insufflation' means 'to blow'. This article is about the intranasal administration of drugs, which is something different. I believe that because this article purports to be about a medical concept, it should be held to strict standards of verifiability. I cannot find the word 'insufflate' being used in this way in any online dictionary. The cited sources do not uphold the purported definition of the term. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC) (a trained doctor)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to withdraw my nomination because my nomination and the 'keep' replies don't actually conflict with each other. I support the idea of an article at insufflation (medicine) - I just hope that someone is able to improve on what's there currently. - Richard Cavell (talk) 00:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Oxford English Dictionary gives as its second definition of Insufflation a medical use:

2. The blowing or breathing (of something) in; in Med. the blowing of air, etc. into the lungs, or of gas, vapour, or powder into or on some part of the body. 1823 CRABB Technol. Dict., Insufflation (Med.), the blowing into any cavity. 1849-52 TODD Cycl. Anat. IV. 1046/2 Insufflation in the dead body is not the movement of inspiration in the living subject. 1876 BARTHOLOW Mat. Med. (1879) 4 By the method of insufflation solid medicinal agents in a finely-divided state are applied to various parts of the respiratory tract. 1887 J. W. BURGON in Fortn. Rev. Apr. 593 With the insufflation of his soul, Adam received also the grace of the Holy Spirit. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 681 The insufflation of iodoform..has given good results. 1898 Ibid. V. 198 Violent inspiratory efforts..and..consequent insufflation of infective secretion into healthy lung.

Also the third definition is medical.

3. The condition of being inflated or distended with air. 1866 A. FLINT Princ. Med. (1880) 244 The names acute emphysema and insufflation are given to a dilatation of the air-cells frequently met with in the lungs of those who have suffered from severe dyspn{oe}a during the last days or hours of life. 1877 ROBERTS Handbk. Med. (ed. 3) I. 171 The lungs are in many cases the seat of acute insufflation.

The definition given for insufflator is also relevant:

A contrivance for insufflating. a. An instrument for blowing air into the lungs or for injecting powders into a cavity, a wound, etc. b. A kind of injector for blowing air into a furnace. 1872 COHEN Dis. Throat 192 Astringent powders may be propelled upon the parts..from the insufflator of Rauchfuss. 1886 Syd. Soc. Lex., Ribemont-Dessaigne's Insufflator, an instrument for inflating the lungs in an asphyxiated newborn child. 1897 Allbutt's Syst. Med. IV. 682 To insufflate the nose with iodoform by means of Kabierski's insufflator.

LittleHow (talk) 07:27, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The OED appears to confirm that I am right - insufflation is about blowing, not sniffing. I don't have a problem with us having an article on insufflation as a medical procedure, but all of your references from the late 1800s describe obsolete medical therapies. The present article is about modern intranasal drug administration. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is editing work to do but it does not require deletion. Our dab page snort leads here and we should not allow such a common term to dead-end. The term insufflation is sometimes used to mean snorting by sources such as this but it would be better to have it under the common name of snorting. Insufflation is properly blowing rather than snorting. This has medical uses and so we should split the article so that it blows rather than sucks. :) Colonel Warden (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though insufflate from the Latin means to blow it also covers the meaning to breath in. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the following explanation of its etymology:

[f. L. insuffl{amac}t-, ppl. stem of insuffl{amac}re (post-cl.), f. in- (IN-2) + suffl{amac}re to blow upon. Cf. F. insuffler (14-15th c.).] 1. trans. To blow or breathe in.

The word was originally used in a religious context--"Blowing or breathing upon a person or thing to symbolize the influence of the Holy Spirit and the expulsion of evil spirits; a rite of exorcism used in the Roman, Greek, and some other churches". It has since become adopted for a medical and psychoactive drug self-administrative one. Other words have made this passage such as "placebo".

There is an important difference which needs to be distinguished with the administration of psychoactive but also toxic drugs between those procedures over which a person has no control and those over which they can control and so "titrate". A procedure under the control of a person and which they can monitor (since it goes straight to the brain as with snorting and "smoking") allows the intake of the substance so that it is self-administered to maximum psychoactive effect but also near but not over the point of its toxicity. For this reason I would argue against the alternative of a delete of a merge with Nasal administration. --LittleHow (talk) 03:43, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Nasal administration. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:25, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Insufflation is not just about the nose. For example, perirenal insufflation was a common process for diagnosis of kidney complaints. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:02, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Keep. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 04:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I had split this article from Insufflation because the latter mostly described the religious context (though most of the links to that article were in the medical context). It did not make sense to have them together in the same article (at least, not as it was written). I can't otherwise vouch for Insufflation (medicine) as I split it pretty much as-was. (See also Talk:Insufflation (medicine)#Split or Talk:Insufflation#Merger proposal) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 17:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Pubmed shows that Insufflation is a widely and diversely used word in medicine with it appearing in 1301 medical article titles and 4378 article abstracts. Some of these usages are already in wikipedia though not mentioned in the article such as Artificial_respiration#Insufflations. --LittleHow (talk) 09:55, 27 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Benjamin Raubinsons

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

Procedural nomination. Contested prod, rationale was Makes a claim of notability, but no real evidence thereof. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Google doesn't return much, and the second hit from the top is Wikipedia's copyright violations noticeboard, when it was dealing with a previous incarnation of this article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 05:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Their Myspace page calls them the "self proclaimed founders of the 'attic rock' scene," and from my searching they're the only ones who do. In fact, it doesn't seems like anyone is really talking about this group at all, certainly not in "multiple non-trivial published works." No other notable achievements. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the two editors above; no real notability is asserted, and their only claim is to be a music band. I can think of plenty other small amateur small rock bands that have likewise failed Wikipedia:Notability (music) in this manner before. KaySL (talk) 15:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any in-depth coverage; does not appear to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 23:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the prodder. LadyofShalott 14:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no touring or other evidence this passes WP:BAND. Bearian (talk) 16:14, 26 December 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 close. One of these articles is already having an AfD, thus it is inappropriate to raise another. This seems to be an attempt to make a WP:POINT. Dougweller (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee and related articles

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

These 3 articles are about assasination plots and scares of the Obamas. I see that there is growing support for deletion of the Hawaii article, therefore I will agree with the possible consensus and call for equal treatment of all 3 articles, which would be delete. They are all minor plots where no shots were fired so I can kind of see why some want deletion. All involved the alleged assasin travelling, but in the Hawaii case, the person travelled all the was from Boston. This is not a pointy request but an attempt for uniformity in Wikipedia. Hopefully, someone will help lengthen the Hawaii article to change opinions about retention/deletion.

The Tennessee and Denver articles are very long but the police admit that these were just early failures, early cases that don't even resemble a real assassination or attempts (like JFK or that guy in the Republic of Georgia) but just some evil clowns with stupid ideas (which is still punishable by jail so don't copy them. Standard TV warning: Kids, don't do this at home)

Maybe some may support merging all 3 articles together. JB50000 (talk) 05:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Denver/Tenneesse. Defer Hawaii debate to that AFD. I am the primary author of the Denver and Tennessee articles; I've played no part in the Hawaii one. I think JB500000 means well here, but this isn't the answer. First of all, there is already an AFD for the Hawaii article ongoing, even as we speak. It's downright nonsensical to start another AFD for it in the meantime. Secondly, it seems as if JB50k is advocating a merge of these articles into one Obama assassination article. Such a discussion should happen on talk pages, not AFD. I think there is some merit to the idea of a Barack Obama assassination plots article, or something of the same name. There have been numerous other assassination scares regarding President Obama (see here for a few). However, even if an article like that were to be made, deleting the Denver and Tennessee articles would not be the right answer. Contrary to what JB50k said, those two plots were more serious and more advanced than the Hawaii one, or any of those others that have popped up along the way, like this or this. The Denver/Tennessee plots should of course be included in a round-up page about all the Obama threats, but the fact is that the Denver/Tennessee plots received far more coverage in reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject, which of course is a big part of the general notability guidelines. The Denver/Tennessee articles could be summarized on an overall threats page, with a link to the main articles. To simply merge them into the Obama threats article would outweigh everything else, and raise problems as far as WP:TOOLONG. And, finally, as I've already stated, the Denver and Tennessee articles satisfy WP:Notability, and so a deletion or merge is not appropriate. Furthermore, both are well-written, well-sourced articles, for which their notability has already been thoroughly discussed and vetted. Both are good articles (see Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Denver/GA1 and Talk:2008 Barack Obama assassination scare in Tennessee/GA1). The Denver article has already survived a deletion attempt within this last month, which makes its nomination particularly inappropriate. And the Denver article is a featured article candidate, although I'm saddened to suspect its FAC is going to get derailed by these constant, unfair deletion attempts. Sorry for the long-winded nature of this post, but the Denver/Tennessee should not be deleted... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:06, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Addendum: JB500000, I also disagree with your claims that there should be "uniformity" among these three articles. If the consensus (which is still not determined) dictates the Hawaii article should be deleted, that in no way indicates the other two should be as well, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. They should be treated as individual articles, not lumped together... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 02:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close - The notability of each of these events is separate from the notability of the other ones, so I don't think they should have been nominated together. Regardless, the Denver article should not have been nominated for deletion again so soon, as it was already speedy kept this month. Since the Hawaii article is already in the middle of an AfD, it doesn't make sense to me to be discussing it in two places. Furthermore, there aren't AfD tags on the Tennessee and Denver articles, and the tag on the Hawaii article leads to the other discussion, so this AfD is malformed. For all those reasons, I think this discussion should be speedy closed. Calathan (talk) 03:22, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Close & Admonish/Warn nominator Completely frivolous off-the-charts nomination: nominator pissed off that "his" article got nominated for being a badly written stub, and already tried to disrupt it by fiddling with it and changing my conttributions. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why has this been nominated for deletion?—nothing wrong with it at all, seems a bit POINTy. ╟─Treasury Tag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:44, 26 December 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, withdrawn by nominator. Bduke (Discussion) 01:11, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of British Railways steam locomotives as of 31 December 1967

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

Too arcane and dated. I admit that I am pretty ignorant of British railway systems, but this seems like it is too Byzantine of a topic for an article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article makes perfect sense in the context of Steam locomotives of British Railways, from which it serves as a useful adjunct; the alternative is to merge it back in with that one, but I'm content that they were separated with good cause. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Considering something obscure is not an adequate reason to delete it. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fits with the level of detail on rail-oriented articles and is not just an arbitrary date. AllyD (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important part of Steam locomotives of British Railways.--MaximilianT (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm no expert with railways, at all, but I know that Britain is important in the history of rail. If I'm reading this right it's details of the locomotives still in operation right at the end of steam's usage on mainline British railways. Whether or not this is the level of detail needed and whether a separate article is needed is one thing, but I seriously doubt this is the kind of material which should be deleted outright. Someone another 13:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Clearly, I'm missing something here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Before it closes, I think that someone should consider any alternative to the silly name of the article, which I think prompted the nomination in the first place. I don't believe that an article should be deleted merely for having an odd title, but nothing says "obscure" like throwing a phrase like "as of 31 December 1967" into the name of an article. Mandsford (talk) 17:20, 25 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:51, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nyland Coughlin

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

A quick scan through Google hits produces nothing but the Wikipedia page itself and the artist's MySpace page, leading me to believe it was self-promotional. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:49, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 03:38, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with nom, can find no third party coverage, fails WP:GNG. J04n(talk page)
Keep. His band is notable enough for the Cleveland Plain Dealer to keep tabs on, which should be enough for a start. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 21:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Regardless of how big the paper is, this is a case of the local paper covering a local act. I bet they talked about the quarterback from the local high school too. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:00, 31 December 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 redirect to Xplanet. Nobody argued this should be kept, so I'm turning it into a redirect to Xplanet, where it's already mentioned as a derivative. (non-admin closure) Pcap ping 19:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OSXplanet

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

The only WP:SECONDARY ref I found for this the macosxhints.com one, which I've added to the article. Now, that site accepts user submissions, but they are filtered by a professional journalist who also works for MacWorld. This entry was actually submitted (and approved) by himself. So, it's a self-published source, albeit by a professional. This nomination should be considered a weak delete !vote. Pcap ping 02:19, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 02:21, 25 December 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) 18:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Larry Cochran

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

Non-notable individual lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:AUTHOR. ttonyb (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. GS h index around 15. Probably meets WP:Prof #1. Does not seem to meet other categories. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 20 December 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) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of half a dozen books, now emeritus faculty at UBC; evidence that he has been influential over some extended period of time in a particular area. The article needs help in copy editing it to wiki standards, but I'd prefer to see it WP:BETTER than deleted. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:11, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PsycINFO finds 36 publications by this author and 7 reviews of his books (representing a wide range of attitudes). His book The Sense of Vocation is cited 19 times in Web of Science and 46 times in Google Scholar. Library holdings of his books are respectable given their relatively specialised topics. All this probably qualifies as "significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed" (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). EALacey (talk) 08:22, 25 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Primeval locations

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

Unnotable list of unnotable fictional locations of the Primeval series. Fails WP:N and WP:WAF. The locations have no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources, and such a list is not an appropriate component of any television series article. Deprodded by User:DGG with note of "sorry, meant to deprod"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:09, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No evidence is offered for the claims made by the nomination. A brief search soon indicates that the locations for this work are, in fact, notable. See here, for example. No discussion was made at the article's talk page and so the nomination fails WP:BEFORE in several ways. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant series, and the best way of handling the material. The individual locations are perhaps notable, perhaps not, but the individual parts of an article do not have to be. (FWIW, I would oppose making separate articles for them even if they were, as excessive fragmentation). They are sourced by the work itself, which is not only acceptable but preferred for factual description of fiction. It could in principle be merged into the main article, and it might appear basically a question of arrangement,--even so, for major series, dividing it up rather than having one monster article is appropriate. However, it is a much more than just a question of arrangement, when we combine too far, the material often gets removed. The nom apparently intends to do just that, saying "Such a list is not an appropriate component of every fiction series article for major fiction". I do not see on what basis information about the locations and setting is not an appropriate component of the coverage of fiction. I challenge the nom to say why they think otherwise. It is nominations like this which show why we have not been able to reach a compromise: those who would prefer separate articles will compromise on combination ones, but the fiction minimalists refuse even that--and apparently refuse even coverage in the main articles. It is true we would not include this information if we were an encyclopedia designed for 19th century scholars, but that's the opposite type of encyclopedia from Wikipedia. DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because extensive minute coverage of the fictional locations of a little 23 episode series are NOT necessary to understanding the basics of the series. Who the hell needs a one paragraph description of what a "home office" is to understand that they have an office they work out of? Most of the locations are one episode locations, and not even "major" locations within the series. The locations are properly mentioned, in context, within the episode and plot descriptions. A list of them is beyond pointless and excessive. People wanting to keep stuff like this is why we can't reach a compromise. Wikipedia is not a fansite, it is an encyclopedia. A major series may warrant a single character list split, or an episode list. But not a list of every freaking fictional element it may possibly contain because the fans want to wax on and on with their personal interpretations and beliefs about a series. The main article is just plain out damn pathetic, and barely above a stub, but yes, lets have 15 subarticles anyway because OMG don't you dare take away my right to randomly guess and conduct OR on Wikipedia because its just fiction and who cares. The material is also not appropriate in the main article per the guidelines for a quality television article set out by consensus of those who actually bother to work on them, rather than the "fiction overcoveragers" (if you want to throw around derogatory terms) who just run around screaming keep at every little fiction item that they themselves will never actually improve or deal with. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we have different ideas about the amount of information we think necessary to understanding. I consider this an encyclopedia , not an abridged encyclopedia. (That said, I agree some of the descriptions can be shortened; a great many articles of this sort would benefit from it--but that's just a question of editing. ) DGG ( talk ) 00:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. — -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – While neutral about the article's existence, I find the title of the article highly ambiguous and misleading. Would strongly prefer a title such as "List of Primeval (TV series) locations". I honestly thought the article had something to do with other articles such as Primeval forest. —Aladdin Sane (talk) 20:37, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
if kept rename per Aladdin Sane, as "Primeval" in this context is highly ambiguous, and List of Primeval (TV series) locations is a much better title. 70.29.211.9 (talk) 07:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's cool that the series has great locations, but that is not a proper topic for an encyclopedia article. The purpose of an article is for people who don't know about something to get the basic information, and in this case maybe watch the program. One article is enough to do this. No need for articles on the locations, etc. which are no interest except to people who are already fans ~~and they shouldn't be reading about their program in an encyclopedia anyway~~. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Delete rationale seems to be mostly IDONTLIKEIT. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:04, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I seem to be the only delete vote and I do like it, just not in an encyclopedia for the general public.Northwestgnome (talk) 23:54, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or if kept, rename). The locations just don't come anywhere near notability. There are a bajillion TV, book, movie series. There are bajillion^N fictional locations. Listing them all is a lovely (if sysyphean) idea for a project... somewhere else. Not on this site. If this particular series is special in some way that others are not, such that its locations are somehow notable in themselves, then at least the name of this page needs to be clearer. DewiMorgan (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree the individual locations do not come anywhere near notability, and we should not have individual articles on them. That's in fact the whole point of having an article like this, to cover them appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The scope of this article fails WP:N, as well as WP:WAF as there is no significant out-of-universe coverage of this material. Just as we don't need to create an article on my hand just because each of the fingers on it aren't notable, we don't need to have an article on a nonnotable grouping of locations just because each of them aren't notable by themselves. Them From Space 03:13, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article fails to establish the notability of the subject. Also fails WP:WAF. Relevent locations already appear to be discussed within the episode descriptions. Sarilox (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn. I'm ignoring Schmucky's comment because software can't be speedied. Joe Chill (talk) 14:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BoycottAdvance

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete all product articles with no third party sources. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Covered at some length in this book. Also mentioned in another. The software seems to be known for a quite while in the community, 2001 interview with the main developer. Pcap ping 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to that book, and also to armchairarcade.com (a site with professional staff) it's one of the top two choices for GBA emulation, and rated as little better than the competitor VisualBoyAdvance. Pcap ping 18:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Discussion in the book seems persuasive to me that at least some external sources view this as notable. Nandesuka (talk) 03:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the number of articles about emulators that make their way to AfD, this goes to show that it is possible for this kind of software to meet our notability guidelines. Good find; keep. Marasmusine (talk) 12:56, 28 December 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. WP:NPASR. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Competition 10

AfDs for this article:

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

A first debate on this closed without consensus. Let's aim to get consensus this time. There are no multiple, independent sources providing in-depth coverage of the contest that would demonstrate notability. External link 1 is a press release republished in a newspaper. Link 2 is the competition's own site. Link 3 is another press release. Link 4 is, well, yet another press release on a site that apparently does not have an editorial policy. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

if kept rename since alot of competitions have a 10th edition, and its more likely to refer to another competition. Rename to Competitia ZECE per article description. 76.66.194.220 (talk) 05:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I concur, keep but re-name to Competitia ZECE!Petebutt (talk) 10:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure it is worthy of a Keep, but if kept it should be at the precise Romanian name which is Competiţia Zece. There is no corresponding article on ro:WP which says something for the notability of the private organization offering this prize. Sussexonian (talk) 00:24, 24 December 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) 02:06, 25 December 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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Netty Leek

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

Non-notable individual lacking GHIts of substance (majority of hits for a book she authored) and with no GNEWS. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 18:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Books appear to be self published, although I did find one article about the subject from a local newspaper[29]. Pburka (talk) 00:15, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:11, 19 December 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) 02:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this person. Joe Chill (talk) 02:20, 25 December 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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dyscarnate

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

I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 22:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neither can I. They've had two unreleased demos and an EP released on a tiny indie label. Does not meet WP:BAND. Glenfarclas (talk) 06:35, 24 December 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) 02:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the best I can find is this trivial mention. J04n(talk page) 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Dyscarnate/77280 RDV (talk) 20:13, 14 December 2022 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Dorman (broadcaster)

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

Unsourced BLP, does not indicate encyclopedic notability, spammy, possible conflict of interest. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-12-18t14:09z 14:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are definitely sources out there for this man, ~~for example as bassist in Iron Butterfly LA Times here and~~ his book here He has had several marginally notable roles as a DJ so he may just make it as an article. Polargeo (talk) 14:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete Tried hard to find proper coverage of this guy and his book. His book exists and is for sale- but i couldnt find any reviews, sales figures etc- just sellers sites. Subject doesnt appear to be notable. If good references and links are included in the article at some poitn msg me and i might change my vote. --Brunk500 (talk) 16:00, 18 December 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) 02:02, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:AUTHOR or WP:ENT. Take your pick. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:02, 31 December 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) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy S. Wilkinson

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

Seems to fail WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG Dougweller (talk) 19:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, the author appears unmentioned from any scholarship, also Lulu.com is a self publishing place, therefore not notable. SADADS (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm seeing a lot of text and a lot of claims; however, none of them are meaningful. --Calton | Talk 14:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, thie site appears only for self promotion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.183.235.232 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 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) 02:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- All of this seems to be original research devoted to publicizing self-published materials Vartanza (talk) 05:08, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I can't find significant coverage for this author. Joe Chill (talk) 02:00, 26 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Plascore Incorporated

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

No references listed outside of industry publications. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 01:01, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong delete~~Weak keep 1 hit in gnews [30]. LibStar (talk) 02:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. When you do a Google search, it's generally best to omit "Inc." and "Incorporated" from the company name. This Google News archive search (omitting "Incorporated") brings up about 38 hits. As well, the article already includes some references. I was impressed by this one: Plascore receives awards from CERN. If CERN likes you, you're cool. - Eastmain (talk) 04:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete average company doing average things. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that this meets WP:CORP. 03:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:13, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Participatory Media

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

Non-notable neologisms. Participatory Media is badly named (capitalization), but it cannot be renamed except by a sysop since Participatory media already exists as a redirect to Citizen media (being nominated for deletion too). The fact that this situation has existed for over three years may be an indication of something, that these terms are not generally accepted, that they are vague and confusing and not of encyclopedic interest, or whatever. Though I don't see any urgent need to keep them, I really don't give a damn if one or both are deleted, if they are merged, or if both stay with renaming of the badly named one and cross-linking between the two. If anybody does care, explain how you think this problem should be fixed. Gene Nygaard (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because these neologisms are related through the redirect as noted above:

Gene Nygaard (talk) 04:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. There is also Citizen journalism and User-generated content, and some others. Both those two are perhaps more widely used terms. At the very least merge the two under discussion. Sussexonian (talk) 23:55, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There's also Democratic media, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:44, 20 December 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) 01:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I don't understand why this page is marked for deletion. "Participatory media" is a term that is used quite extensively at MIT and even Stanford, e.g. in courses such as "4.330/4.331 Introduction to Networked Cultures and Participatory Media: Media City" and "Participatory Media: Radical Networks, Tactics, Breakdowns", projects such as "Participatory Media for Youth and Community Development", theses such as "Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement" (by Howard Rheingold, Stanford University) and "Participatory Media and Collaborative Facilitation", etc.

Can "Participatory media" be redirected to here? Alternatively, if capitalization is a problem, can "Participatory Media" be redirected to "Participatory media" (a new page with the contents from "Participatory Media")?

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Don't see how this meets WP:N. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: Academics, Books, Criminal acts, Events, Films, Music, Numbers, Organizations & companies, People, and Web content."

Academics do use and papers/books do have the term "participatory media". As mentioned above, "participatory media" is a term that is used at MIT and Stanford.

btw, how do you add the timing here?

From the Citizen Media page: "Many people prefer the term 'participatory media' to 'citizen media' as citizen has a necessary relation to a concept of the nation-state. The fact that many millions of people are considered stateless and often without citizenship limits the concept to those recognised only by governments. Additionally the very global nature of many participatory media initiatives, such as the Independent Media Center, makes talking of journalism in relation to a particular nation-state largely redundant as its production and dissemination do not recognise national boundaries."

Personally, I think the terms "social media" is inadequate. Participatory media are "social media whose value and power derives from the active participation of many people" - not only to read/sample, befriend, chitchat, etc. but also to create, publish, critique, remix, recreate, collaborate, etc.

See also Levels of Participation: The SocialTechnographic Ladder developed by Forrester to indicate levels of participation among users of social media. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 05:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please also see new updates that I've made to the "participatory media" entry - adding references to certain things said on "participatory media" by notable people such as Dan Gilmor, Jay Rosen, David Sifry, and Weinberger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joo (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

So, how does it relate to citizen media? What is to be done to fix the redirects mess? Has anybody done anything about that? Obviously not. The what links here pages for the two articles don't show any connections between them.

Participatory media still goes to citizen media and not to Participatory Media, which remains improperly capitalized.

Delete. I still say delete them both, unless somebody cares enough about them to salvage one article from them. Gene Nygaard (talk) 07:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How do you salvage one article. How about removing the redirect, putting the content in Participatory Media into Participatory media, then deleting Participatory Media? Joo (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC).[reply]

This is a properly done request for multiple articles; it includes Citizen media as well. Read the bit below the initial reasons; that's the text WP:AfD tells me to put there for multiple articles.

Keep after a bit of searching I think that the term is notable, but I've read the article and I can't really say that I know anymore about what participatory media is. Handschuh-^{talk to me} 10:05, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My inclination is also to keep both articles at this time, per WP:PRESERVE, with an eye to possibly merging in the future. An admin will be needed to move Participatory Media to Participatory media, over the existing redirect. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:40, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping both, with no cross-linking and coordination between them, is not a reasonable option. Better to delete both, and if in the future somebody want's to start over again, fine. Gene Nygaard (talk) 00:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reciprocal 'See alsos' and a merge tag do allow a certain amount of cross-linking and coordination. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's reasonable enough as a stopgap measure. If nothing gets done in a reasonable time it should be reviewed again. Part of the problem with these neologisms is that while there may indeed be some usage as presented in the articles, others might call it by different names, or use the same terminology with different meanings. Just be sure that the closing admin moves Participatory Media to Participatory media over the redirect. Gene Nygaard (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We should have articles about concepts, not jargon. There seems to be salvageable material in this one, even though it badly overlaps with other articles as indicated above. Deciding how to divide a topic between multiple articles is generally a hopeless task at AfD. Perhaps WP:WikiProject Journalism can help organize this mess? Pcap ping 13:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both for now - I agree with Pcap above that this is not really an issue to be solved by AfD. Both these phrases ('citizen media' and 'participatory media') have been fairly widely used and probably deserve articles - even if they are neologisms, they're notable ones. I agree that they cover very similar topics, and the articles are largely unreferenced, but those are issues to be solved by improving and merging them (if necessary), not deletion. Robofish (talk) 17:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby (Robert) Bolger

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

Non-notable horse breeder. The last paragraph is copied from what appears to be his death notice -- the article doesn't mention it, but he died this past November 2. My condolences, but WP:NOTMEMORIAL, and I can't find anything that would indicate he passes WP:BIO. Speedy was declined and PROD removed, so it's here now. Glenfarclas (talk) 05:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC). Edited to add: the [version] of the article did mention his death and funeral.[reply]

Keep - Bolger was one of ten people profiled in the book A Way With Horses - which is sufficient to establish notability. Racepacket (talk) 07:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Point taken, but on balance I don't believe that a profile in a book about people "who have spent their lives working with horses in County Galway" constitutes the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" which WP:GNG looks for. And I note that the publisher, Ardcru Books, seems to be a tiny outfit that only publishes books about Connemara ponies; I can find out almost nothing about it. In fact, if you click the link for the "Ardcru weblog" on the left-hand side of their page, it turns out to be "Niamh's Weblog," the site of the author of "A Way With Horses." I think that pretty much means this is a self-published book. And I don't know how many people there can be in County Galway who are fanatics about Connemara pony breeding, so I'd have to think Niamh O'Dochartaigh and Bobby Bolger knew each other. Just adding this perspective to the discussion. --Glenfarclas (talk) 09:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In most cases where a biographer writes about a living person, the author gets to know the subject. I agree that the secondary source should be independent of the subject, but the jury is still out on whether this source qualifies or not. Racepacket (talk) 02:42, 19 December 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) 01:55, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable horse breeder as evidenced by the existence of a good source. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While the book would cut it as a RS, it seems too limited in scope to be considered significant coverage. If I published a book about people who live in my house, they'd be in a published book, but would that make them notable? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:04, 31 December 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. Wow, a FL gets deleted through AFD, first time I see that. Anyway, the list of works is summarized in the author's article, if anyone is interested in adding more, let me know. Tone 19:21, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of works by William Monahan

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

There's something suspicious going on with this article. First, there was the article credited to Mr. Monahan but actually written by myself. Second, I'm pretty sure "Vanity Plates" was written by Christopher Caldwell. I'd like someone to look into this. Your help pages indicate that "All Encyclopedia content must be verifiable." Well, can we have that? --unsigned by User:Yuck_I_says

Delete This is alleged to be a hoax by David Myers and a quick search revealed no RSes. Arhus denizen (talk) 01:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment. The Lighthouse books are on Amazon and he has an entry on IMDB but most of the page is a list of unverifiable and probably unimportant articles. Sussexonian (talk) 00:49, 24 December 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) 01:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with someof it merged back to the main article. A few may be wrong, but it is not a hoax in general, but just an overly expansive listing of extremely minor works (book reviews, newspaper columns, etc.) by a relatively minor author with one famous screenplay. The details belong on a fansite. DGG ( talk ) 17:56, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in addition to being created by a user with a self-stated intent to fill the encyclopedia with disinformation, it's an absurdly detailed list for a minor figure. Basically, this author has about 5 notable works (screenplays, i think a novel, one or two other odds and ends) which all get a mention in the text of his biographical article.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:51, 25 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kristen Wagner

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

Non-notable member of a barely notable group. No non-trivial coverage found. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not independently notable, and to the extent her membership in Shut Up Stella is used to assert her notability, it's not enough because the relevant WP:MUSICBIO guideline only applies to "a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles," which she has not. Glenfarclas (talk) 07:08, 24 December 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) 01:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:05, 31 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Cabrera

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

Non-notable individual. Lacks GHits and GNEWS of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO. ttonyb (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability presented. GregorB (talk) 01:27, 20 December 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) 01:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is neither asserted nor shown in the article. Edward321 (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable for his extensive work on filariasis, a parasitic disease; I'm looking for a good reference, but there's 62 references in Google Scholar for that alone. Edward Vielmetti (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; the man is indeed notable for his work in parasitology. The little content in the article appears to have been lifted from WikiPilipinas, whose content is licenced under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2. I'm therefore going to splice the rest of that articles content into the Wikipedia one, along with its two references. KaySL (talk) 09:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. GS cites not high but has done important work on parasitology in the Phillipines. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 28 December 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. basically with the lack of signifiant coverage which hurts his case for notability JForget 22:29, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Scott McFadden

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

Non-notable voice actor. Probably enough to pass db-a7, so I've listed him here, but I can find nothing significant about him and his thin IMDb listing, as Brian McFadden (III), is here. Doesn't meet WP:ENT. Glenfarclas (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can not find any significant coverage of him in reliable sources. No evidence he meets notability guidelines. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 02:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've searched for info on him, it seems his main claim to notability is his letterman appearance - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hql_8lPuNJA. So i guess it comes down to whether that makes him notable --Brunk500 (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Hey, thanks for finding the video, that was fairly funny. I hope for his sake he becomes more notable, but I don't believe a 5 1/2 minute Letterman appearance meets WP:ENT's standard of "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." --Glenfarclas (talk) 08:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:36, 19 December 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) 01:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable comedian. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:34, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything more to say about what makes him notable, or is this WP:JUSTAVOTE? Glenfarclas (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ENT. One appearence on any show isn't going to cut it. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GB Fan. It should be noted that there is a Washington Post article being cited within this biographical article. ...only it's not really about Brian Scott McFadden at all. It's a passing mention of one of his shows. I am endorsing deletion based on the lack of non-trivial coverage about this individual from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 08:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Dispatch

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

Small software company, only external references are to industry newsletters. Fails WP:ORG. —Chowbok ☠ 00:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Notice confined to media of limited interest and circulation does not feed the weasel. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:32, 18 December 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) 01:45, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see how press releases and listings in reference databases meets WP:CORP. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:16, 31 December 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. No specific sources provided. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:45, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shipleys of Maryland

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

WP:NN club Toddst1 (talk) 00:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Near to a textbook case of WP:NOTMEMORIAL; this organization seems only to plump up this particular family. No independent sources, fails WP:ORG. There are a handful of Google News hits, most in obituaries, and none about the organization. Article created by a SPA who hasn't been active for over a year, and no other editors have made substantive improvements since; it's carried maintenance tags for a year. Article is orphaned as well. RGTraynor 09:18, 18 December 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) 01:44, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A brief search establishes that this organisation is, in fact, quite notable. The nomination does not mention or discuss these numerous sources and the matter has not been discussed at the article's talk page. The nomination thus fails our basic deletion process. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just out of curiosity, have you looked at any of those links to ascertain that they are about the organization instead of the family? Even a casual glance reveals that almost without exception, they have "GENEALOGICAL STUDY" all over the titles and text; they are obviously about the family and not about this organization. (This common false positive might have been avoided had you used "Shipleys of Maryland" in your search parameters rather than "Shipleys" + "Maryland;" the former parameter returns zero Google Books hits.) Beyond that, leaving aside that no one genuinely claims that talk page discussions are prerequisites to AfD, this article hasn't had a non-maintenance edit in thirteen months, the SPA creator's long gone from Wikipedia, and surely anyone who would notice a talk page discussion on this article would notice a AfD filed, and would have responded before a relisting. RGTraynor 11:58, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have looked at those links and, yes, some of them do discuss the organisation. As for the pre-requisites, these are clearly described at WP:BEFORE, "Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with. If there is no discussion then start one, outlining your concerns. Then watch for responses from interested editors.". This process follows the general consensus of our dispute resolution procedure which requires efforts to discuss with parties locally before going to a central forum such as this, "Talking to other parties is not a formality; it's an imperative to the smooth running of any community.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:07, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Some of those links do discuss the organization in detail? Terrific; that would suffice, if it was true. Which ones, specifically? RGTraynor 21:54, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a WP:COATRACK for genealogy on the Shipley family. There's no evidence that this organization has any real notability (total lack of Gnews hits, for example). Mangoe (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, there are numerous hits for the organisation in Google news and so your statement is false. It's curious that RG Traynor assets that there are zero Google Books hits when I see dozens in that link too. I wonder if there's some regional filter which is stopping you seeing the hits for some reason. Colonel Warden (talk)

I have asked you more than once now to provide links to reliable sources discussing this organization in "significant detail." There are none from Google News in the last month [31]. The archive search returns 21 hits [32], of which most are obituaries of officers or titles included in CVs. Not a single one discusses the organization in detail. I'll ask you once more: provide links to such sources. RGTraynor 01:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mangoe and nom, Wikipedia is not a memorial. JBsupreme (talk) 21:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a definite coatrack article, using the group as a pretext for a lengthy article about this generally non-notable family. The article says virtually nothing about the group itself, which is not surprising since the group is not notable either. Most hits relate to its self-published book, and the Google Books hits are passing mentions of the book or newsletter in genealogical discussions, etc. Just not a notable organization, sorry. Glenfarclas (talk) 20:24, 31 December 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. Blatant hoax; how are results from January 2010 known already? King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cricket 2002 VG World Cup

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

If there was ever a reason for a CSD category for "stuff me and my friends are doing", this is it. It appears to be the results of a video game competition played over the past few days by some friends. So it isn't a hoax, it isn't gibberish, it does have context, it doesn't fit into the A7 cats but it has no notability and no place in an encylopedia. Also applies to Cricket 2002 VG and Cricket 2002 World Rankings. Looking at the contributors talk page, 3 other variations of this page have been CSDd already, but I can't see how the criteria can be applied. Please snow delete. The-Pope (talk) 00:28, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The article is plain garbage and lacks any form of notability. KaySL (talk) 00:48, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. The-Pope (talk) 15:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with nomination. First, any video game tournament is gonna have a hard time proving notability. This one appears to be nothing more than some friends playing a 7 year old game (the most this could possibly be is a local thing since the game came out before the system had online play). TJ Spyke 15:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 16:40, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is absolutely no place for stuff made up one day on Wikipedia. It should also be noted that the game being used doesn't have an article. (Side note - unless it's like that in the game, they love it so much that they don't know that Nottingham's cricket ground is called Trent Bridge.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 15:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just came across this article myself and was going to AfD, someone had saved me the hassle! Harrias (talk) 10:50, 27 December 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Chuckee

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

No evidence of notability. Previously tagged as A7 by another editor but declined. HJMitchell You rang? 00:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 00:30, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable rapper, fails to meet even one criteria of WP:MUSIC (merely being signed to a record label, assuming he really is, does not make someone notable). TJ Spyke 15:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Totally unnotable BIO. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 21:25, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No albums, performances, awards, or anything. Certainly nothing even approaching any of the WP:BAND criteria. — Gwalla | Talk 22:57, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to just be self-promotion. The only assertion of notability, that he's signed to something called Young Money Entertainment is unsourced and is likely a lie. Fails WP:MUSIC splendidly. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not a lie, I've added the source to the article. --Cyfal (talk) 20:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:MUSICBIO miserably. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:09, 31 December 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.

@@ Line 30: / Line 30: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Montenegro Airlines destinations}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/T. Tony Cai}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wagner Companies}}
+<!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Wagner Companies}} -->
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robertson v. McGraw-Hill Co., Weiss, and Shepard}}
 <!-- {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nankali Post-system}} -->