Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 September 26 September >

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 Userfy. Moved to User:KrebMarkt/Bitter Virgin (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bitter Virgin

[edit]
Bitter Virgin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N; no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "I believe it is notable. Discuss in an AFD if you wish" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:53, 25 September 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 Prior to the apparent undiscussed blanking of the page and subsequent nomination for speedy deletion and double nomination for AfD the content here was a redirect. As the blanker was not the original author, and there was no discussion anywhere that I can find, I am restoring the redirect and sending this to RFD on the nominator's behalf. Thryduulf (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rsd

[edit]
Rsd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

nonsense Afaprof01 (talk) 23:36, 25 September 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. Can be restored if somebody wants to write an article about the Associação de Professores de Matemática.  Sandstein  05:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ProfMat

[edit]
ProfMat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find signifciant coverage for this term. Joe Chill (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The only thing close to a source provided is the external link and that is just an announcement on the website of a sponsering organization. I couldn't find any source that would establish notability using Google either. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'd suggest merge to the organization, but they don't have an article. Let's worry about getting the group an article before writing articles about their local terminology which has (per Rusty Cashman) no notability on its own. -Miskaton (talk) 00:02, 26 September 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) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Overstat

[edit]
Overstat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN software, previous version of article nommed for speedy by me as blatant advertising. Sole sourcing is to some blog, total of three Google hits, one to the blog and two to the company website. →ROUX ₪ 21:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ScreenJot

[edit]
ScreenJot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ambiguous spam, could be spam, but doesn't meet G11. Only ghits are download sites. Ipatrol (talk) 21:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. The sourcing used to establish notability has been challenged, and editors favouring retention of the article were not convincing in their defence.  Skomorokh, barbarian  06:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Prayer Network

[edit]
National Prayer Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable organisation, article appears to have been created as a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD [[1]] Pontificalibus (talk) 20:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; it's reliably sourced. The "old" Ted Pike article which you mentioned was deleted in 2007, so it doesn't make sense to invoke that discussion anyway. Stonemason89 (talk) 20:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, remember Wikipedia: Don't demolish the house while it's still being built. This page is less than a day old and I am currently in the process of finding other reliably sourced information to add to it. I don't think the NPN can be described as non-notable, either. It's at least as notable as Michael Collins Piper, who is considered notable enough to have his own article (and, incidentally, has ties to the NPN).
Finally, just because an article (or a closely related article such as Ted Pike has been previously deleted as non-notable doesn't mean it isn't notable. The previous deletion very well could have been made in error; another possibility is that the original incarnation of the article simply didn't provide enough explanation why the subject was notable.
I'd also like to comment on the user who posted on [[2]] that "Wikipedia is not Klanwatch". That may be true, but you could also say that Wikipedia is not FishBase; despite this we still have one-sentence articles on obscure topics like Chromis limbaughi, so I'd say this article is on pretty safe ground, in terms of notability. I'm currently in the process of finding more information on Harmony Grant and the organization in general; I admit that this article right now is mostly about Ted Pike but I plan to expand it in the near future. It's not just "a cover to recreate the contents of Ted Pike, deleted in AfD", as you said. Remember to assume good faith, please. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Although the article is named for the organization, less than 25% of the text is about the it. Additionally, I do not see significant coverage in secondary sources - emphasis on multiple sources. ttonyb (talk) 02:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. First, it's almost a G10 as it stands, because it does nothing but present non-RS POVs critical of NPN. Second, there appear from the Google News hits to be at least three separate organizations which use this name, making such a negative article problematic. While it may meet the GNG, it doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG in any meaningful way, which leaves us two options: either expand it to be NPOV and disambiguate it, or get rid of it. I fundamentally believe the latter is the better course of action--per the afd comment on Ted Pike, we're not Klanwatch. I wouldn't be opposed to merging this into an appropriate list, if someone comes up with one. Jclemens (talk) 02:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has the Anti-Defamation League been a "non-RS"? It's a widely respected organization that has been around for nearly a century and specializes in the study of anti-Semitism-related topics; as such, it's one of the best sources possible for an article like this. Stonemason89 (talk) 02:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
come on, TPH, start looking at what I do . I say delete here about 30% of the time, not 1% of the time like some other editors you may have in mind. And that's only because I don't bother with the clearly obviously deletes, which make up half the workload here. My general view is that of the articles that come here, most should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 18:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - From the Google News search if you narrow it by adding Oregon to the search, you get three items: one appears like a good source (though its behind a pay wall), one is a trivial mention of this group, and the third is an editorial, so no notability through that alone. A search through the archives of The Oregonian, the regional big paper in the area with archives back to mid-1987, gives only two articles, with one being trivial and the other slightly more than trivial. The Willamette Week and the Portland Tribune have zero articles. In fact its a bit odd that the really left-leaning Willamette Week has nothing, but in some ways that is telling when considering the notability of the group. The WW covers groups like this in general, so the fact that they haven't bothered to cover this group seals the deal. As to the existing sources in the article, it is trivial coverage in the SPL. The ADL is trickier, but I just can't accept it as a RS due to their stated POV at the top of the article pages, which makes you have to question their motives and thus reliability on this topic. As in you wouldn't exactly take an article from the Democratic Party's newsletter to be particularly reliable about say the Republican Party, despite strong editorial oversight. I know the are a highly regarded organization that does good work, but they are not exactly a neutral media outlet. It just doesn't fit in with the spirit of RS. So, simply not enough in-depth coverage in RS at this time, but if they step up their activities then maybe they will get noticed. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said there were more, and there are: just from GNews (search on the term without limiting to oregon, and then sort out the ones that are actually about this network. it's more tedious, but otherwise things get missed.) Atlanta J & Constitution (a major regional newspaper); 2 articles in al-Jazeera, an international RS which is not likely to share the bias of the ADL [3], [4]. I agree about the ADL's bias, but they wouldn't be devoting this much space to it if it were truly trivial. DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And like I said, one is good (the Atlanta paper), one is an editorial (the al-Jazeera one that has both opinion & editorial in the URL), while the last one didn't show up when limiting it to sources that mention Oregon. But, that one too is an opinion piece as it says at the top. And yes al-Jazeera doesn't share the ADL bias, in fact it is often considered to have the opposite bias (which in many ways is represented in the second opinion piece), see an example of their political cartoons from the ADL. So, like I said one good source from Atlanta, one from Portland, = not notable. Aboutmovies (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
even biased sources show notability, especially when they come from sources on different ends of the spectrum. Opinion pieces about an organization in major sources show notability, though they are not necessarily reliable for facts. There's enough here for an article. I wish they didn't exist. I wish at least they weren't notable. But that doesn't affect their actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care one way or the other if they exist, I only care about the notability guidleines, which say independent, reliable sources, thus unless they are a reliable source, they actually do not count. Here, as opinion pieces, they cannot be considered reliable sources on the subjects, as opinion pieces can only be used on articles about themselves. So, again, doesn't meet the criteria at this time. Maybe if they issue some press releases a paper or two will pick up the story, but until then, no dice. User:Aboutmovies 01:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I came to this page because someone just tried to add a piece written by Rev. Ted Pike as a source to an article. While searching on Google to figure out who Pike is I came across the WP page on the NPN, which contains useful information. For that reason I'd like to keep the article. However I just did a search in Proquest newspaper archive and found almost nothing on the group. The only significant mentions were in articles about the Urbana public access television dispute (when they aired some videos prepared by the NPN). I also chekced Google books, and found little there either. Until more sources can be found, I agree that the article should be deleted.   Will Beback  talk  20:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sandviken (municipality)

[edit]
Sandviken (municipality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sandviken has never been a municipality. Not mentioned here (a statistic on all current and historic municipalities in the region) nor here (a paper on all municipality mergers). I believe it was a part of Bergen landdistrikt. Geschichte (talk) 20:23, 25 September 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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pledge Angel

[edit]
Pledge Angel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Procedural nom for IP editor. Rationale: Unreferenced neologism, prod removed by article creator without address the problems. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC). My opinion is below. ascidian | talk-to-me 20:03, 25 September 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. Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story

[edit]
I'm a Mistery - The Whole Story (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mid-price compilation released by non notable european label (Carosello). Has failed to appear on any notable music chart. Lack of significant coverage by reliable sources. Kekkomereq2 (talk) 17:03, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:42, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:36, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Geri X

[edit]
Geri X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 03:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 19:34, 25 September 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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

EcoDater

[edit]
EcoDater (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Non-notable website. Syruso (talk) 19:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is questionable. It looks more like an advertisement to attract more members. I think that having ONLY 500 members and 50 new members per week is not enough to have an article on Wikipedia compared to the other dating websites where there are millions of members List of online dating websites. It is just one of the many many normal dating sites in the world. Nothing indicates that it is notable and that it can distinguish themselves from the other normal dating sites except being eco-friendly, which is not enough. Also, the references provided are mostly news releases. Jolenine (Talk - Contribs) 00:24, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the entry for EcoDater. I am a blogger with a focus in the online dating industry. EcoDater is a dating site that represents a massive demographic in the eco-friendly/green dating segment. Viewing the list of other dating sites listed on Wikipedia and represented in the List of online dating websites, it is clear that traffic and number of members are not necessarily valid criteria for exclusion from Wikipedia without considering other factors. Note that SprayDate, ShakeMyWorld, and Compatible Partners are far down both Alexa's rankings and number of total members compared to the big dating sites, yet deserve an entry due to their specific associated demographics and/or otherwise notable features. EcoDater is the fastest growing online dating website for the sizable eco-friendly demographic and there is plenty of non-press release third-party content available to cite and support its relevance (which I am pleased to apply in editing the entry if so needed). Its blog and social networking tools also differentiate it from the hundreds of other non-segment-specific dating websites. Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. It doesn't have significant independent coverage in reliable sources. What I could find was newswires and parroting of press releases. Amyjen, I believe that you are a paid advocate for Ecodater, due to information I found through simple web searches - please read WP:COI before contributing again to Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 00:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can assure you without equivocation that I am not a paid advocate for EcoDater, or paid in any other role by EcoDater or by any other dating site. I am well aware of the obvious conflict in producing an entry for Wikipedia were I accepting payment and am confident no information exists to prove otherwise. I advocate on behalf of sites that I believe present value to the online dating community without ever expecting or receiving any kind of compensation. The eco-friendly/green demographic of the online dating community has been under-served and neglected; my motivation in writing the Wikipedia entry was to enhance awareness of a service that many online daters would welcome. Here are two examples of several I found during searches that review EcoDater from an unbiased and original perspective: http://www.blisstree.com/articles/green-dating-find-your-eco-soul-mate/, http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/social-and-connections/901-finding-eco-love-a-survey-of-the-top-green-dating-sites.html.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 03:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advocacy is forbidden on Wikipedia, paid or not. Fences&Windows 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The style and content of the entry are not intended to advocate the website and I am surprised that it comes across to you in this way. My motivation in writing it could be conceived as advocacy in the same way that someone with an affinity and interest in rock climbing writes an entry on carabiners - this is advocacy in the sense of promoting and disseminating knowledge for the benefit of the public, and inherently informed by an underlying interest or passion. I don't believe that this is a concept discouraged by the tenets that govern Wikipedia entries, but if the EcoDater entry is deemed to be irrelevant and/or inappropriate at this time, I accept this judgment and won't comment further.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 00:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"I also just started working with a new dating site for eco-friendly singles called EcoDater. There is a small group of us working to build it up." Fences&Windows 04:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was affiliated with EcoDater when it started and strictly on a volunteer contributory basis - an acquaintance of mine started the site and asked me for some content due to my writing skills and my interest in the green movement and online dating. I complied, believing in the concept and hoping for its success in benefiting both the green and online dating communities of which I belong. I don't see how this should necessarily preclude a neutral, compliant, third-party-referenced Wikipedia entry on an organization that is unlike almost any other with an online presence and is extremely relevant to both the green and online dating communities, neither of which are small in number. Regardless, if both the entry and my justifications for it are ultimately deemed unacceptable, I do not have a problem supporting the entry's removal and hope that it may be reentered at some later date under more appropriate circumstances, whatever they may be.Amyjen (Talk - Contribs) 10:14, 30 September 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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Particle Programmatica

[edit]
Particle Programmatica (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" comments mostly fail to address the sourcing requirements of WP:N and are accordingly given less weight. "Plenty of sources out there" is not enough, they must be provided here and now.  Sandstein  06:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psyced

[edit]
Psyced (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Unsourced. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:43, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and expand since it's a recognised server software, under its previous name psycMUVE you can find more references.[6] Historically, this software is around since the 90s, was used by MTV Europe[7] and BrasNET.[8]. As a historical side note the original author brought the action command (/ME) to IRC.[9] Technically, Psyced works as a bridge between it's native PSYC protocol and various other chat/messenging networks (e.g. IRC, XMPP, webchat), not many open source projects offer this functionality. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 18:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Being "recognized server software" is not a reason Wikipedia keeps articles. A search on Swedish Google, a wiki, a doc site, and another wiki are not reliable sources. Miami33139 (talk) 03:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your deletion suggest should be rejected for formal reasons, you did not research the artcile's notability properly and still refuse to. The first link I provided points to more sources. Please do not mass-suggest articles to AfD in areas you are unfamiliar with, because other editors have to spend time to rescue articles that shouldn't be here in the first place. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here an update, I investigated a bit further since the nominator refused to provide evidence for his claims. The software is popular in Germany and a direct competitor to XMPP, there are celebrity chats and political debates hosted with Psyced. The software has apparently been used in multiple German TV awards show, is this possibly the most popular German distributed chat system? Perhaps we can include this AfD in both software and Germany related deletion discussions to get better information. Dankeschoen! 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had a quick look at the German Wikipedia article here - and found no references there at all (apart from to the psyced website). I can't speak for how the German Wikipedia's notability criteria compare to ours, but if it is so notable in Germany, I am surprised that an article over there which has existed for 5 years has no references! All of the times in our article where this software was used are all in Germany. Perhaps this is one of those cases where the subject is notable enough for inclusion on the German Wikipedia, but not for the English one? Unless some kind of significant evidence can be found for its notability in the English-speaking world, I fail to see why this should be included in this Wikipedia. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 01:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Could you also take a quick look at the English Wikipedia article here - and comment on the 16 sources, print media coverage, solid DMOZ reference and over 10 years of documented history? You are long enough around to know the policy, that using Interwiki articles for claims of notability is quite irrelevant, in any way it's not something I based my argument on. Please look at the amount of evidence I presented in the English Wikipedia, there must be at least one that you deem reliable 3rd party source? 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • OK, let me comment on the 16 references:
  1. is the project page - not independent
  2. has "supported by psyced" - not about the software itself
  3. is by the project - not independent
  4. is a forum
  5. describes the CPAN client, so I would accept this as a decent reference, if there was evidence of significant coverage elsewhere, and assuming Arne Gödeke is independent of the project, otherwise it is from the project
  6. is about the WikiMedia Extension that allows Psyc to be used - useful to show that it can be used with WikiMedia, but not significant
  7. appears to be a forum/blog
  8. is by the project - not independent
  9. confirms it was used by a Danish-hosted MTV award - but only says "The event featured a PSYC backstage video chat hosted by Juliette and the Licks." - not significant coverage, no details given beyond that one short sentence
  10. Does not mention Psyc at all, from what I can see
  11. Is a project page - not independent
  12. confirms the existance of a gateway, but not number of hits, when last used, etc
  13. is a project page - not independent
  14. confirms the name change, but is from the project team, to a mailing-list, so is not independent - also no responses shown on the archive
  15. is another mailing-list/forum - again, no response seem to be present. Also, beyond showing the name change, it doesn't give other information
  16. (German) - This is about a lecture given last month in Germany, which will "show the current state of development." This at least confirms that the software is still alive! However, if that is the case, the arguments below about old software not having many references online is moot - if it is still beign developed, there should be something out there...
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 discussion demonstrates convincingly that coverage of the subject is superficial, not independent and/or unreliable. Userfication declined because what the article needs is sourcing, and that does not require userfication.  Sandstein  06:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PsyBNC

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
PsyBNC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, sourced to newsgroups and documentation. WIkipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You didn't add the AfD tag correctly, go back and add it correctly.
  • Keep, clearly notable, no reason at all to delete. -- Oldlaptop321 (talk · contribs) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The article is well sourced. Some of the sources listed (the ones assoicated with the project's own website) are not independant enough to establish notability but these 3 [[10]], [[11]], and [[12]] are. I don't understand why this article would ever have been nominated for deletion in the first place. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do hope you are kidding. Ubuntu help documentation is effectively self-published. The University of Waterloo is primarily a mere mention, including this software when they found that irc based botnets have been found on their network. Freshports is regurgitation from the developer, nothing more, and not independent. Miami33139 (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No I am really not kidding. If you don't like those 3 how about these that were not used as sources by the article: [13], [14]. I am sure I could find more if I were willing to sort through all 386,000 google hits. Rusty Cashman (talk) 22:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I was hoping so, because those new sources are entirely not reliable. Everything2 is user-submitted content. Astahost is user-submitted content AND that content is a straight copy-paste from the Ubuntu docs. User submitted content is not reliable as a reference, and is absolutely not relevant to establish notability. Please read WP:N and WP:RS to understand notability and reliable sourcing. Miami33139 (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • You appear to be more familiar than I am with sources in this subject area, and I am perhaps having more trouble telling reliable independant secondary sources from self published sources than I usuually do in other areas. Perhaps someone should revive Wikipedia:Notability (software) to help with some of this. The following sources seem reasonable to me but if you can show that they are also not independant secondary sources then perhaps you are right and there are none. The last ones I was able to find are: [15], [16], [17].
            • 1 - file.net, a malware identification and removal site, not necessarily about this software as it says "Some malware camouflage themselves as psybnc.exe", probably does nothing to establish notability. 2 - this is documentation at a minor ISP, possibly a RS as documentation, but does not establish notability. 3 - same as #2, self-help documentation from an ISP. I do not see these things as establishing notability, merely that the software exists. Miami33139 (talk) 03:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep and expand, solid references, software is widely used and documented. There are over 300,000 Google hits. Wikipedia is not a thimble. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of the existing sources contribute to establishing notability. Google hits are not a reference. Miami33139 (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 83.254.210.47 -- you mention to expand; please help us to keep the article and go to it and expand it. :) Any single constructive edit would improve it to a more acceptable level, including sources; not just the AfD discussion. --Mokhov (talk) 23:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the advice, did some editing. Not sure what's the best way to integrate books as references, there is offline coverage in print media and magazines [18]. Linux Magazine and DMOZ reference [19] to demonstrates that psyBNC is a recognised software in the IRC bouncer category. Furthermore is this software from historical value, as the article mentions was psyBNC the first bouncer that allowed to protect your IRC nickname even when you are offline. An absolutely novelty in the late 90s after IRCnet splitted away from EFnet and nickname disputes and nickname collisions were still a regular issue. This AfD discussion is in my opinion an example why mass-nomination of software articles is a problem, the nominator didn't research the topic properly and even unintentionally is unable to include the technical and historical implications in his presentation. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:46, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Talk about bad sources. DMOZ, a user-editable site, that lists that this software exists. LinuxMag, one mention in one paragraph in an article that is not about psybnc, but about how to spot rogue processes running on a server, and psybnc is a running process on the machine. Please stop adding trivial mentions! Miami33139 (talk) 02:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Let me correct this, DMOZ is not a user-editable site [20] and for example Google uses it for page rank determination (a single entry can improve a site's page rank). Linux Magazine is a well known publication and the cover story falsifies your claim that psyBNC is only sourced by newsgroups and documentation. Here is another source from Heise [21]. This is not a vote, please come forward with some evidence. For example what have you searched for, how many hits did you get, what was the best reference you could find? Do you have a background on the subject and (independently from any prior knowledge) which are 4 most prominent IRC bouncers have you identified in your research? Please prove you researched the topic properly for the purpose of establishing a meaningful notability discussion. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wow. I see a flood of keeps here, again a sign of systemic bias on Wikipedia for certain internet related things. We would not tolerate such a lack of sourcing on any other subject. While I do see lots of hand waving I've yet to see convincing evidence of non-trivial coverage of this subject from multiple reliable third party publications. That's how we judge notability here on Wikipedia, not by how much WP:ULIKEIT. JBsupreme (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per WP:IAR; while the sources may be better and improved (it is a general problem for software alike), the article is not bad actually. And there are several interwikis too implying people there considered it sufficiently notable there to keep. Userfy to me if deleted. --Mokhov (talk) 23:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we've been ignoring the rules a bit too much here and demonstrating some sort of bias/favoritism toward internet related articles as of late. I personally find this shocking. I have no objection to you putting this in your userspace (although others might) but we certainly cannot host it in the main article space if there isn't evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable third parties. JBsupreme (talk) 05:44, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Bias and favoritism towards the internet? Is that aside from the fact that this is an internet based encyclopaedia edited by users via the internet, by people are are internet savvy and that the internet is possibly the most important invention of our time? I can't think why this could be... *sigh* --Hm2k (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with JBsupreme here. the fact is that there is not one single third party, reliable source here with psybnc as its topic. trivial mentions do not equal notability. this is unfortunate in situations like this, and maybe the notability policy can be updated for things like software, because i used to use psybnc (briefly - preferred the basic bnc.c), and so i can attest to the fact that it was important to hundreds of people. but that does not mean it's notable per wikipedia's standards. this vote has to be delete for the sake of the encyclopedia. this is not an indiscriminate collection of internet nostalgia Theserialcomma (talk) 01:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - Although i know the program to be quite popular, the media coverage remains quite poor. I will have to agree that in its current state of thoroughness and sourcing, the article should go. In case the article gets deleted: If anyone wants to pick up where the article was left, i saved a copy of the article here.~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 08:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Learning through play

[edit]
Learning through play (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The "keep" opinions do not cite the reliable independent sources that they claim exist, and the article as is is indeed sourced only to "wikis, blogs, and documentation". Ad hominems don't help, either. This means that I have to give the "keep" opinions less weight than the "delete" opinions, which make reference to the well-established sourcing requirements of WP:N.  Sandstein  17:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ZNC (IRC bouncer)

[edit]
ZNC (IRC bouncer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Sourced to wikis, blogs, and documentation. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:37, 25 September 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 userfy to User:Mokhov/Psotnic as notability has not been credibly established.  Skomorokh, barbarian  07:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psotnic

[edit]
Psotnic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No sources. Wikipedia is not a software directory. Miami33139 (talk) 17:29, 25 September 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. Any redirect is an editorial matter.  Sandstein  17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social evil

[edit]
Social evil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lacks references, and is basically a dictionary definition, while Wikipedia is not a dictionary. and is an almost unavoidably subjective one, as would be almost any additional content one would write for this generic term. The inclusion of particular items in the See Also list is likewise subjective. School leaving age involves a social evil? Gay rights: some people will call homosexuality a social evil, others will call homophobia one. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I agree, this is original research by synthesis and of very little use to anyone since, as the nominator points out, the perception of "evil" is subjective even if reliable sources are found; hence every "evil" and its polar opposite would be presented. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Social evil is a proper term, not a subjective topic. I believe contributors can expand the article over time.
    • I really don't think so. Once the term has been defined, if it can even be defined both neutrally and satisfactorily, all I think you can do is list examples or discuss specific examples. But discussions of specific examples belong in the articles on those examples; I don't see how you can have a generic discussion of social evils as a general class. And, again, the selection of examples is highly subjective. Even when people are in agreement about whether something is bad, what determines that it's a social evil? Is poverty a social evil? It's a social misfortune and a social problem, but I wouldn't apply the term "social evil" to it. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- —Largo Plazo (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and salt. This is a blatant example of WP:SOAP that is backed up by that well-known British bunch of soapboxers, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Eddie.willers (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to Evil Nearly every social event may be seen by some group in society as a social evil, even childbirth: beyond 2.1 per couple is a social evil to strict malthusians, no matter how much the children are loved. what can be included in social evil is inherently ambivalent, so all this could be is a dictionary definition, which WP is not. it is a term used commonly, but that doesnt mean it gets an encyclopedia entry. Only if a particular, well established group used this phrase consistently, and it became a well used meme, even if used in a biased or political manner, and this use was debated among others not in the group, and the whole discussion was mentioned in third party sources, then we have an article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:45, 26 September 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. The discussion provides several references to substantial coverage in reliable sources, e.g. [27].  Sandstein  07:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joe's Own Editor

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Joe's Own Editor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(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) 16:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep: I think there is sufficient notability for the editor even if its pseudo namesake doesn't agree :-) Karnesky and I improved the article a bit, and even as stub as it is, it's keepworthy; this is a historical text editor (it's true, not the sexiest topic to write about). --Mokhov (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the book sources others have linked to above. This has coverage in a huge number of independent reliable publications, easily demonstrating notability. Thryduulf (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from historical value, a common editor in the 1990s which made it into many early Unix/Linux distributions. Better known as 'joe', personally used it on at least three different Unix variants at school and work. There are references in online and offline media, the reason for this nomination is a mystery to me. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 00:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and Schroder's book:
    Schroder, Carla (2004-12-01). "Editing Text Files with JOE and Vim". Linux Cookbook (1st ed.). Sebastopol, California: O'Reilly Media. pp. 68 –&#32, 77. ISBN 0-596-00640-3. Retrieved 2009-09-26.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 02:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A popular unix-based editor and one that has received significant coverage in reliable sources: [31], [32], [33].--Michig (talk) 06:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I was also able to find several sources just using Google, and the editor seems to have historical importance in the early days of Linux. I my opinion the article could do a better job of describing that, but that is hardly a reason for deletion.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Going keep for this one - and this is pretty much a combination of the old software guidelines and WP:IAR. The only source we have for this is popcon (above) and the dev status - vitality, download hits (see, again, Debian's popcon utility), that sort of thing. Perhaps the religious wars over on usenet. The problem that we're going to run into here is that Free software - be it as in beer or freedom - won't get the same coverage as, say, Microsoft Word, or stuff like that. Face it, Wired Magazine is not going to do a review on this (and it's probably because their readers really don't care about a popular CLI editor under *nix). All this and more owes to my intentional ignorance of the rules - this is a notable piece of software, but the notability you find is really not convenient to Wikipedia. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete still not seeing the notability here for this "popular" editor. JBsupreme (talk) 07:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The coverage looks sufficient to me. Linux Magazine published an article about it. Dream Focus 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Merge as the people above wrote "joe" was used as default editor in many Linux releases (e.g. Slackware). The fact that it is not used widely today is no reason for deletion (otherwise the article about MS-DOS must be deleted, too). However I would merge articles like Jupp (editor) to this article. Another idea would be the creation of a page "unix text editors" that will contain short descriptions of vi etc. and links to these Wikipedia articles as well as "full" descriptions of tools like "joe". Mr1278 (talk) 07:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a notable unix editor. I was surprised to see this one nominated for deletion. The name sounds silly but its not a personal project used by just "Joe". --MarsRover (talk) 20:55, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article of this venerable, notable and deeply respected Unix text editor. Crafty (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It was my favorite editor back in my shell days. I'm not sure if the sources sited by others here would be considered "significant coverage" or not but from the ones a skimmed, I think it squeaks by. However, I'm not going to bold the word "keep" because at this point I don't think I could make anything other then an ILIKEIT or NOHARM argument. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Applying WP:ONEEVENT is seldom a clear-cut matter; reasonable people can disagree (and here they do) about whether this is indeed a "one event situation" or whether the subject warrants an article of her own essentially for the reasons provided by Ronnotel. At this time, there's no consensus for deletion, but with a few months' hindsight, it might be easier to evaluate whether "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one".  Sandstein  17:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Giles

[edit]
Hannah Giles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:ONEEVENT. The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry. Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. John Asfukzenski (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep From WP:ONEEVENT: If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate. Is the event highly significant? Yes, it gets thousands of hits in the reliable sources. According to multiple sources, the viability of ACORN is now in question because of this event. Was Ms. Giles' role a large one? Undeniably. It was her idea from the start and the entire premise of the event depends on her actions. Ronnotel (talk) 16:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless the neutrality of the article is improved. Eeekster (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree with Ronnotel that the event was highly significant in that it gets thousands of hits and that the viability of ACORN has been questioned. But the subject herself doesn't seem exceptionally notable; if this is her claim to fame, shouldn't she just be folded into a subsection of the ACORN article? As it stands now, the substantive portion of the article on Ms. Giles is two sentences to the effect that she is a 20 year old journalism student who studies at Florida International University and writes for BigGovernment.com. The referenced excerpt from WP:ONEEVENT states "a separate article is generally appropriate", but there isn't much else generally to note about Ms. Giles. If her notability was only her idea to participate in a video pretending to be a prostitute to see what she could elicit from ACORN social workers, I'm thinking it's more appropriate to include her in the ACORN article instead.--AzureCitizen (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, she's also recently become the subject of a $5M lawsuit by ACORN for her actions. And as such, has becoming a cause celebre among conservatives and free speech proponents. This is more than just a student journalism project. If she wasn't notable before this, I would submit that ACORN's reaction has made her so. Ronnotel (talk) 18:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I can definitely see what you're driving at, with regard to there being much interest in her right now because of the battle over ACORN and her cause celebre status with conservatives and some free speech proponents. But as it stands right now apart from the ACORN mess and lawsuit, she is just a young college student majoring in a certain subject attending a certain university and working as columnist at a .Com. If someone searches her name on Wikipedia and it links directly to the subsection article on ACORN, and that subsection includes the facts above (that she goes to college, and writes as a columnist), can we really say that is insufficient and her notability requires a separate biographical article for her? Surely there are tens of millions of people who it could be said "go to X school, are majoring in X, and do X for work." Is there anything, apart from the ACORN drama, that makes her notable? As such, does her wikipedia information really need to be listed apart (separate) from the ACORN article, in another article which says the same thing? --AzureCitizen (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You forget to note that she originated the idea for the ACORN sting. The amount of people she has affected with her story is staggering. She came up with the 2nd most important story of the year. I for one am very interested in her story and not having to dredge through other articles to have a focus on her and her thinking, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)
  • Delete unless she becomes notable for something else. This one event isn't enough notability for an article. JohnWBarber (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ONEEVENT and Ronnotel. Her notability has definitely increased, especially now that ACORN has filed their lawsuit. Taking that into consideration, along with her development of the original idea, involvement in the undercover videos and their far-reaching consequences, she has enough merit to warrant a separate article as noted in WP:ONEEVENT. - Neo3DGfx (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and put any content not already in acorn controversy article there. bfigura said it: she has zero notability outside of this event, and the real event is the alleged illegal behavior of acorn, the political reaction to it, lawsuit etc. shes just the trigger, so she deserves a mention in the main article, until she does more than appear on talking heads shows.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I came here to this page this morning thinking I would say delete based on subject notability being only from a single event, but fully realizing that someday in the future, the well-cited info on Ms. Giles would be likely to be recycled should she ever become more notable due to a second notable item. However, after just reading the WP:NOTABILITY (OneEvent section) it is generally appropriate to keep the article in the specific narrow case where the event is significant and the individuals role in the event was a large one. So I would say, keep it. N2e (talk) 13:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete 80 percent of the article is nothing more than stuff that can be found here. Only two sentences in the entire article actually discuss who she is. I honestly cannot believe this is even debatable. It fails WP:1E by a mile. Richard (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy (assuming that one is kept, which it looks like it likely will be at the moment). --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 19:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge there is almost nothing here about her--in fact, looking at the refs, i can find it impossible to actually find anything about her. (though there are sources available--see GNews). This is hardly a NPOV article, as it pretends the group sponsoring her involved are neutral political organizations, which they are not, as their own web pages demonstrate [35] But the importance in anh case is the story.
  • Merge with ACORN 2009 undercover videos controversy or Keep and revise (a poorly written article is not grounds for deletion). Hannah has been in the news since the story broke, and it's obvious this story will continue as ACORN's funding is challenged and the suits against Hannah play out in the courts. In short, we've seen a lot of her already at the national and international level (BBC), and there's no indication this will let up. Rklawton (talk) 17:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I find it totally amazing that Wikipedia would even be discussing deleting the article on the person who originated the entire idea of the ACORN sting. Without her, the entire ACORN story would not have emerged. I would say she would be #2 on the list of Time's Person Of The Year award, with President Obama as #1. And Wikipedia is talking about deleting here? Amazing. What is happening to such a great concept as Wikipedia? Whether or not you like the news, it is a HUGE news story and I know it will be documented everywhere, but Wikipedia?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk • contribs)
CommentWhile it looks like the story is big enough to allow for an article on this person, i think this article should be relatively small, as its about HER (she hasnt actually done much yet), not the sting and its aftermath, which should be the major article, along with the ACORN article. and, whoa, you just showed your bias here. ACORN is a bit player on the national scene, and their previous "scandal" was a politically hyped up non-event. Ms. Giles as person of the year? thats beyond the pale. Even if this results in the total takedown of ACORN, and even if ACORN has organizational complicity here, so what? Unless we find evidence that ACORN is a branch of al-qaeda, or space aliens, etc, this is not that important. Ms Giles is NOT that notable. if ACORN was so vulnerable, this would have happened eventually. shes not woodward and bernstein. and WP IS documenting this event, and we DO have to debate this. How about articles for each of the defendants, or the lawyers on either side, or the cameraman shooting the film? there is a threshhold for notability for each article, each judged on its own merits. WP is doing fine, thank you.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment Perhaps I was a wee bit over the top (attempt at hint of sarcasm ;\ ). However, the beauty of Wikipedia is the ability to freely expose both sides of an issue. The idea was simple, but then again she did follow through, etc. My desire is to make sure that the originator of an idea is documented. I do concur the article should be small and relate relevant bio info and appreciate the feedback. I sense a consensus forming. Thanks for the response. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.124.55 (talk) 11:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep The ONEEVENT concept is moot now that ACORN has filed a $5M lawsuit against Ms Giles, accusing her of breaking Maryland law in the taping of conversations. It turns this into an even bigger event concerning free speech, the press, and privacy within tax-funded organizations. Ignoring subjective matters for a minute - as a matter of law, media attention, and public concern that will now be focused on the legal outcome, this has also now become a media rights and a test of whistleblower rights as it relates to taping a conversation. If moved to Federal court, the stakes could be larger. The actions of Ms Giles were also the precipitant for Congressional action as well as many other Federal and state agencies and major corporations in stripping both money and power from one of the most powerful national political organizations in the country, and a strong player in the election of the sitting President. One must not only look at ONEEVENT, but at the social, economic, and political significance of that one event. If it is enough that the Congress of the United States can put together and pass a partisan-free bill based on the results of Ms. Giles investigations and pass it within days, the event should be significant enough for Wiki. Since she was the impetus and played at least a 50% part in it, it is hard to diminish her role. ONEEVENT is not relevant for these reasons. Political purpose aside, Ms. Giles is a huge story in journalism at the present and is under discussion in many areas of journalism. That too makes Ms. Giles Wiki-able. I would agree however, that information concerning sponsoring groups should be eliminated unless and/or until they become relevant to who she is or she becomes strongly attached to the group.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardman (talk • contribs)
  • KEEP IT. Both sides are shown along with a note that since the activity was illegal, represenatatives of ACORN are filling suit against those who obtained it; not those who commited it onder their employ. How much more more real can that be??
above moved from talk page to project page by Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment she is no Gavrilo Princip, though comparing articles is not the best way to proceed. her article needs to be no larger than his i would say.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep It is NOT a one event topic. She has created a situation where an old and famous organization has been stripped clean of federal tax dollars AND that organization has filed a bogus lawsuit against her. She is participating in a new form of investigative journalism that this article does not relate and she is part of an event. I think the argument that she is a non-notable person involved in singular event oversimplifies what she has done and is still the part of--of an on-going event.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love the irrational biases shown here. the lawsuit is not "bogus", and anyway who are we to say that its bogus? last time i heard, i cannot record someone without their knowledge unless i am a police officer or govt agent with probable cause. ever hear of the constitution? it applies equally to those we agree AND disagree with. there is validity in theory to the lawsuit, just as there is a political reality that could mean ACORN is shut down regardless of their culpability, or the fairness of it. thats all reportable and notable, and can be reported with NPOV fairly easily. and i never said the whole subject is a single event. its not. but she is still not notable beyond her role, though that, as i said, at this point justifies a small article, but not a puff piece.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So let's see. You are pointing out that, in your opinion, other people biases are "irrational". Does that imply that your biases are rational? Everyone has a bias, whether they admit it or not. How do you know the lawsuit is not "bogus"? What evidence do provide for your conclusion. You provide a conclusion without evidence. All you have provided for your conclusion that in your opinion (not fact mind you) that you believe the lawsuit is not "bogus." On top of that you provide the conclusion that other people's biases are "irrational". Of course, you do not provide any evidence or even an example of other people's biases as irrational. You don't even make it clear what "biases" you are referring to. You just proclaim without evidence or fact that other people (I'm assuming anyone that does not agree with you) have "irrational" biases. Under this form of illogical argumentation, I could argue that you biases are "irrational" also. I don't need evidence or support of any form or fashion--just my opinion. This is known as the "I said it, it must be true" argument. It is a very, very weak form of defense. Also, you comment that "you can't record someone" without their knowledge is simply a factually incorrect statement. It has NOTHING to do with the article about whether the Hannah Giles article should stay or go. It is also factually flat out wrong. Now, in most states of the Union you CAN record someone without permission completely legally. That is a fact. Probable cause only applies to government officials, not to private citizens such as Hannah Giles. It does not apply to Hannah Giles. That is fact. And "probable cause" is not even the focus of the lawsuit. Now, there is a law in the State of Maryland that may or may not apply to her. That is the focus of the lawsuit. What you state above is a misrepresentation of the lawsuit's substance. Yeah, I read all about the constitution in law school and I heard correctly, unlike you, that the Fourth Amendment applies to cops, prosecutors, and others acting on behalf of the state, etc--not private citizens such as Hannah Giles. So your argument concerning "probable cause" is "bogus" to steal a phrase. So please don't attack other posters when you comments are "irrational" and your arguments are "bogus".--98.196.129.137 (talk) 14:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never said the lawsuit wasnt bogus. i said it appeared to have some theoretical validity. I dont care if youre justice roberts, your opinions are not fact here. you said "bogus lawsuit". until a reliable source describes it as bogus, or until its thrown out of court or decided entirely in ms giles favor, its neither bogus nor legit. so thats the bias, saying its "bogus", without sources to back it up. of course i have a bias, and its clearly pro acorn, but i would never dream of adding to the main article or commenting here without seriously considering all points of view. I would welcome any sourced comments on the lawsuit.i have already agreed that she deserves her own article, given the degree of coverage. I think its important that our language in the talk pages show our ability to have an NPOV despite any personal bias we may have. Its also important to not misrepresent sourced comments and try to make sources say what they dont. thats an endemic problem at WP, people from all sorts of perspectives do it, and its wrong no matter who does it. I hope that we can keep to a minimum undue coverage of any of the sides here. and im sorry for using the word irrational, and apologize for that. that is not civil.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 21:48, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. I'm not Justice Roberts, but then again I never claimed to be, therefore, your comment above which references Roberts is merely weak sarcasm and of course your comment is off the subject and irrelevant. It does not boost your argument in anyway. Now, I want to point out one more time. What I wrote about the underlying lawsuit is NOT, as you seem to imply, merely my opinion. It is fact. Probable cause is not the focus of that lawsuit. Probable cause is a term that comes directly from the Constitution and it applies to government officials, not private citizens. You stated otherwise and you were incorrect and I called you on it. The lawsuit is about a specific law in the State of Maryland and the jurisdiction of Maryland is in the minority on the issue of taping a discussion without consent. That is also fact. It is NOT opinion. I repeat: Your stated the lawsuit was about "probable cause" and it is not, and you are wrong. That is a fact. We will see if the lawsuit is valid or not. As the article is written right now the reader would get the impression that it is an open and shut case for ACORN, but that is NOT true. The real question is whether the ACORN workers had a legitimate expectation of privacy and Giles can argue quite strongly that the ACORN workers did NOT have an expectation of privacy. In the videos it is clear that the door was open. People were coming in and out of the room. Some of the ACORN employees were yelling through the open door to other ACORN workers, etc. Also, the information that Giles released is clearly the topic of a public discussion about public policy and that also diminishes the ACORN employees expectation of privacy. Expectation of privacy and the interpretation of a recently passed law in Maryland will be focus of the lawsuit, not as you incorrectly stated probable cause. You were wrong and I called you on it.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please note the words of the Washington Times: Hannah Giles, the young woman who dressed up and posed as a whore in the BigGovernment.com ACORN child prostitution sting videos, is an aspiring investigative reporter and National Journalism Center intern. You can read her Townhall.com bio here. Not familiar with NJC?. . . Actually, I shouldn't say "aspiring," as she's already accomplished something nobody from 60 Minutes, The New York Times, or any other mainstream media thought to do, and that is find a way to expose the dirty truth behind the closed doors of ACORN. She was able to do that because she asked the right questions, unemcumbered by the liberal conventional wisdom that blinds so many Mainstream Media journalists.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently that's not from the Washington Times... it appeared instead as an editorial in a daily paper called the Examiner, which Wikipedia mentions was initially the subject of some controversy for being delivered free exclusively to white affluent neighborhoods while "majority-black neighborhoods" were not served. Doesn't mean the information is true or false, just worthy to note it's all a matter of perspective when we're talking about an editorial. If you're curious, here is a link to the entry. AzureCitizen (talk) 20:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct it is the Washington Examiner, my mistake. However, your editorial comment about the distribution of the Examiner is not without error either. The Wikipedia article that you directed editors to did NOT state that majority-black neighborhoods "were not served." That is simply incorrect on your part. It pointed out that they may or not have received distribution and if they did get distribution that distribution might have been light. You misrepresented the comments of the a competing paper to the Examiner, the Washington City Paper. Clearly the The Washington City Paper has a economic interest at stake to deride the reputation of the Examiner since both the City Paper and the Examiner are the two free papers in the D.C. metro area, as opposed to the Post and the Times. Moreover, not only is your comment a misrepresentation of the so-called controversy outlined in the Wikipedia article it very, very far from the point of this particular discussion page--which of course is about whether or not the article on Hannah Giles should stay or go. You did NOT comment on the substance of the quote from the Examiner which is quite straight-forward and speaks directly to the substance of the debate here. That editorial states unequivocally that what Giles did was scoop 60 Minutes and The New York Times and every other mainstream newsroom in the country. I think part of the argument on this page to support the removal of her article is that she is in school, a mere student of journalism. But that is bogus argument. Yes, she is in school and she is young, but she writes articles for the Townhall.com and BigGovernment.com and she is doing original journalism that is beating the holy crap out of the old guys on the block such as 60 Minutes and The New York Times. And her real journalistic work has brought an old corrupt Washington D.C. institution to its knees. That is fact that you choose to ignore. Instead you focused on a bogus complaint by the Washington City Paper, a complaint that really just boils down to the fact that the City Paper is having some of its customers taken by a competitor. Yeah, it is just sour grapes on the City Paper's part and does NOT in anyway diminish the unbelievable accomplishment of Giles who scooped 60 Minutes, et. al. Once again, removing her article would be wrong.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I did read the editorial; my point was that it's actually an editorial from a newspaper of somewhat lesser stature than the Washington Times, and like all editorials, it's just an opinion. No offense, but I didn't find it convincing in terms of the overall argument being debated on this page.--AzureCitizen (talk) 20:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken. What did not find convincing? That the Washington City Paper is a cheap rag? That's true of course, but it is not the topic of discussion here. What is the topic of discussion is that Hannah Giles brought down ACORN in a way that neither the Washington Post, The New York Times or 60 Minutes did not do. That's a fact. Now, she is being sued by ACORN under a probably unconstitutional law in Maryland--a law that limits free speech--and she is still in the news and will remain in the news.--98.196.129.137 (talk) 13:20, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Popped on Wiki one last time just to check this page before I head out for five days where I won't have access to the internet. No time to respond in great depth, but essentially my comments near the very top of the thread sum up my take on the issue (please read them if you're interested). I still think that everything that is happening (the video tapings, the release on the internet and the news stories that followed, the acts of Congress and federal entities, the lawsuit, etc) are basically all part of the same event, the "ACORN undercover videos controversy," and that if the article on Ms. Giles only contains a sentence or two of non-notable information (that she is student at X school, majoring in X, doing work for X), then people searching "Hannah Giles" on Wiki should probably get a re-direct to the other article instead until such time there is more notable personal information for her, or there is a second event not a part of the ACORN videos controversy. Otherwise you end up with two articles just duplicating 97% of the same stuff. Just my take on the matter, now I'm out of here, courtesy of the USAR... --AzureCitizen (talk) 15:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If we're gonna have an article on her, the fact that she's hot is notable. --Milowent (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- User:Ronnotel has it right. Our policies specifically allows exceptions. The intent of the BLP1e was to protect hapless private individuals, who wanted to remain private individuals -- not self-promoters, like Ms Giles. If she had appeared in the video, and had not agreed to a series of interviews with high-profile commentators I would agree she wouldn't merit coverage here. But she did appear. Her views, motives, etc, are in the public arena. Deleting this article would be a disservice to readers. Some of us may not want to reward self-promoters. But I think that should be irrelevant. Self-promoters who fail to make themselves public figures we should, of course, continue to ignore. Self-promoters who succeed, we should cover, in a non-sensational manner that complies with our policies on neutrality, verifiability and other key policies. Geo Swan (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • WRT merging -- what those with an urge to merge overlook is how that erodes the utility of our watchlists. The reader who wants to know when something significant has triggered a change to the Acorn article, but is bored with additional info on Ms Giles, or additional suggestions we really need hot pictures of her, can put the Acorn article on their watchlist, and leave the Hannah Giles article off. And vice versa for her fans and detractors. This would not be possible after a merge, and I consider that a strong argument against a merge. Geo Swan (talk) 21:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • To the point of watching the two pages, couldn't the same be said for many articles that could be split up? The fact of the matter is that this article simply does not pass WP:BLP1E, which states "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted." Giles is someone who most certainly will remain low profile after her one event dies down, unless she is involved in another event of significance, in which case a Wikipedia page for her should exist.--Henry talk 21:28, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not sure how she can be low profile after this. She's being sued by ACORN for $5 million in a case that's guaranteed to generate headlines. Even without the lawsuit, I doubt she would fade into the background. Ronnotel (talk) 00:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. SNOW applies here... Tone 18:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Israeli theft of Arab cuisine

[edit]
Israeli theft of Arab cuisine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article as stands isn't NPOV; with a title like that I'm not sure it's likely to become so. The synthesis of the article reads like original research. Pseudomonas(talk) 16:39, 25 September 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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is Lazy Yoga ?

[edit]
What exactly is Lazy Yoga ? (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

More of a how-to page than anything else; somewhat promotional; and no evidence that this is a notable topic. Tagged for speedy under A7, but that really doesn't fit here. Nyttend (talk) 16:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: A how to page. Joe Chill (talk) 18:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I'm not sure I'd even go as far as calling this chatty couple of paragraphs a how-to page. It's not clear what the author wants to convey, but it doesn't seem to meet notability. Lissajous (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Lazy yoga," "lazy man's yoga," "yoga for lazy people," &c. seem to refer most often to Nuad Bo Rarn, which is apparently just Thai for "traditional massage." This article from Mahidol University in Thailand discusses Nuad Bo Rarn, and here's a link to an abstract about Thai massage that came up as a search result. Most of the other hits in Google books and Google scholar were either in languages I couldn't read, or from woo-woo alternative healing (so they seemed to me) books, websites, and journals. Adding the words "lazy" and "yoga" to "Nuad Bo Rarn" in both Books and Scholar reduced my hits to zero. The terms coexist on the standard-issue Wierd Wild Web, but as a pitchline on practitioners' websites, not a true AKA, in my opinion. The rest of the article's content looks to be original research by synthesis/conjecture. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 19:35, 25 September 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, G3 by Tnxman307. Blueboy96 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution-

[edit]
Evolution- (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contents entirely unencyclopedic, and name of article downright disruptive. An editor other than the original author removed speedy deletion nomination for some reason. Move for a speedy delete. Favonian (talk) 16:19, 25 September 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) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonoke Medical Software

[edit]
Jonoke Medical Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for not very notable company. Rd232 talk 16:14, 25 September 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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashley Galvan

[edit]
Ashley Galvan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced article for marginally notable dancer. Have tried to redirect to Dance on Sunset, but article keeps being recreated by unregistered accounts. Some GHIT activity, but appears to be lacking substance. Some local, hometown, GNEWS hits. ttonyb (talk) 15:52, 25 September 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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neusport F.C. Green 98'

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Neusport F.C. Green 98' (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article does not establish the notability of the particular soccer team. Contested prod. ... discospinster talk 15:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably the "98" in the title refers to the birthdate of players and therefore signifies that this article is specifically about the under-11 team, which only reinforces how non-notable it is..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 10:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the article says "U11/12". GiantSnowman 11:06, 28 September 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 Nomination withdrawn. GlassCobra 14:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Goldman (utopian)

[edit]
Samuel Goldman (utopian) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Notability issues, only sources from local area GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Well sourced and notable. If Stelton had an article that would be a good merge target, but it's been incorporated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is very confusing. Samuel Goldman (utopian) is a redirect to Fellowship Farm Cooperative Association. What has been proposed for deletion here? The redirect or the article the name redirects to? I have a hard time believing it is the latter because that article is clearly well enough sourced to survive any challenge, and surely it should have been nominated under its own name. If it is the former shouldn't the nomination say that it is an effort to delete a redirect to avoid confusion? Has someone played games here and changed article names while the deletion is being discussed? Either the editor who nominated this for deletion or one of the editors who has worked on the page, or both should clarify what is happening here. Rusty Cashman (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for not checking in on this sooner. It appears that the creator of the article has gone around this process and moved the article to a new title and added sources, effectively rendering this AfD moot (though also changing the focus of the article considerably). I'll give this more consideration shortly, but I would like to state for the record that I was given no notification about the changes to the article, nor offered any chance to collaborate on improvements. GlassCobra 20:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirect. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 01:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cusgarne Community Primary School

[edit]
Cusgarne Community Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is extremely short and doesn't convince a person why it is important to keep listed. It doesn't really provide any information to one. LouriePieterse 14:50, 25 September 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. Despite extended discussion, only two credible users (that are not clearly meatpuppets or the like) came out and argued for a Keep. The result withstanding, all users here are reminded that the WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL policies are mandatory throughout the project, including here at AFD. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pain Hertz

[edit]
Pain Hertz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:MUSIC, this article has absolutely no case for notability. No real sources- just self-published material and vendor sites (amazon, etc). King Öomie 14:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - They have at least two notable members for other reasons - this fits criterion #6 is Wikipedia:Notability (music) (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front, and Lozupone's music has been used in audio studies). They may fit #1 and #5 (although I remember seeing something about how they are against record labels as a political position - I'll have to find a source for that. Maybe it was boingboing.) A lot of the references are actual real sources - I see only one vendor site source actually. Am I missing something? However, I think the strongest claim for notability is #6. Luminifer (talk) 17:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (edit conflict)(edit conflict) Though the language in #6 is ambiguous, I'm inclined to interpret 'notable musician' to mean 'notable as a musician', which Wolven certainly doesn't meet- he's an author. A gig band composed of Tony Stewart and Kevin James would fail this similarly, unless they fit one of the other criteria. The 4Front article is entirely without sources to support ITS notability (unless you count the circular notability from Pain Hertz itself), which makes me unsure about Kaplan's notability as well. --King Öomie 17:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, I don't agree with your interpretation there. In fact, I believe the reason for that clause is as follows: if two members have their own wiki pages, it is unclear where to put the information for the band. For this reason, it makes sense to create a single place for that information to go - otherwise, we could always merge this with one of the articles - but which one? Does that make any sense? (The 4Front page does kind of stink - Joe Bergamini is the most notable member there, and HIS notability is established a little better - but not much - on his article... but in that case I think it's just a poor article - this guy's pretty famous, at least in the music scene he's involved in). Luminifer (talk) 17:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, having a Wiki article doesn't really fix notability. I'm kind of approaching this from the standpoint of properly referencing and dimensioning an engineering drawing. I'm fairly confident in my interpretation of that language (and again, I'm referring only to #6). Perhaps I should open a discussion at WP:VPP. --King Öomie 17:52, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Having a wiki article doesn't fix notability, but it does present the logistical problem of where to put this information, if not here... (putting aside other concerns on notability for the moment) Luminifer (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, thought I completely forgot to actually say it, what I meant was, "I'm not sure all of the people involved here meet the criteria to have articles themselves", which may result in the multiple-locations issue being moot. --King Öomie 18:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, are you arguing against the interpretation of item #6, or are you actually questioning the notability of 4Front, Joe Bergamini, etc? Luminifer (talk) 23:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure anymore @_@ --King Öomie 07:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So, would you mind stating the basis of your claim that this doesn't, at the very least, satisfy point #6 at WP:MUSIC? Are you claiming that the associated acts are not notable, or is it because one of them is notable, but not for being a musician (despite the wording in the policy not stating that explicitly). Again, my belief is that point #6 is there so that the information is not duplicated across numerous articles, leading to serious maintenance issues. This would apply regardless of the reasons for the subjects' notability. Luminifer (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Meh" and yes. #6 doesn't really state anything explicitly- it uses a number of adjectives that appear unnecessary if 'famous for being a musician' isn't a requirement. And I'm reasonable sure 1-12 are there because Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. --King Öomie 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow. It has two independant and distinct phrases, describing the two separate cases it applies to. (1) "Is an ensemble which contains two or more independently notable musicians" (the one I say applies here), and (2) "is a musician who has been a member of two or more independently notable ensembles" (this IS meant to apply, I imagine, to a supergroup setting, where members of notable bands form a band that is not yet notable in its own right). Luminifer (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first part is the supergroup part, I'd venture. The second part I believe refers to solo projects of already notable musicians. And again, I'm referring to the language used, "independently notable". --King Öomie 15:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That language applies here perfectly - all of these members are notable for their works independent of Pain Hertz. How is that not clear? Luminifer (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a circular reference issue. If a member of 4Front is notable in part due to his work with Pain Hertz, but Pain Hertz is notable due in part to that member's work with 4Front... I'm saying that the term "Independent nobility" is intended to avoid this. I might need a graph. --King Öomie 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can see how that would be a problem, but it simply isn't the case. I stated at the beginning here, Carmine Guida is a noted instructor and musician, who's actually very famous in his circles and has been the subject of numerous print articles. Nick Wolven likewise is a semi-famous author - clearly this has nothing to do with Pain Hertz. 4 Front I don't know much about, but if you look at Joe Bergamini's page (the founder of 4 Front), this guy has been around - he's involved with the Movin' Out Billy Joel musical, has worked with Bumblefoot of Guns n Roses, is the subject of print articles... None of this has to do with Pain Hertz.. Luminifer (talk) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this is getting a lawyery for my taste (read: really don't want to make that graph). I will concede the point that they just might pass #6, but I'd prefer to not close this AFD while there are existing Delete votes. --King Öomie 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you make the graph, you'll find no circular notability - all of these people are _independently_ notable. Luminifer (talk) 16:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]



{{Not a ballot}}

I'm sorry, but was there a reason to add this here? This page isn't exactly flooding with SPAs. If this is going to be boilerplate, perhaps it should be in the AFD header template by default. --King Öomie 18:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was added because you sent a message to a user which seemed to be asking them to take part in the discussion because you knew they would support your side of the debate, although this is not strictly against policy, I reserve the right to add Not a Ballot if I see necessary, as could anyone, SpitfireTally-ho! 06:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Some light sleuthing likely would have revealed that he asked me to put the article up for AFD (if I felt there was a case for it). I linked him the created report in the interest of him not having to lurk my contribs page. I don't mind if the template stays, I just didn't appreciate the implication. --King Öomie 07:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify I did indeed ask Sir King's opinion on the notability of the subject. He looked at t and felt it was worthy of this AfD and, as he should, gave me to link to show me his reponse to my query. The boilerplate above is foolish and un-req'd. As for the AfD, Sir King put his reasons in the opening nomination statement and, after reading his lead-in, I must say I concur that the page is a...
  • keep (edit conflict)(edit conflict) I've seen this band several times live, and was one of many, many people at their shows. I would presume that it lends some credence to their claims of notability, not withstanding some of their original interpretations of mash-ups (two songs, same chord progression, performed simultaneously) which they've become quite well known and liked for. It strikes me as clear evidence of 7, in addition to 6, especially considering what the ex-keyboardist Michael Kaplan has gone on to do since his departure from the band. --amalthya (talk) 22:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)— amalthya (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • King (who tagged this here), that seems to be true enough. However, I thought this was "not a ballot", so if they have a valid thing to say, it should not matter if they haven't done much on here before, and if they don't, then even if they were a major contributor, it would not matter... or am I missing something about "not a ballot"? Luminifer (talk) 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No need to get defensive. 'Not a ballot' is not a free pass for SPAs (in fact, nothing is). Three good arguments from three accounts pull more weight than the same three from one account. You'll notice I tossed the standard template up there for a user who's SECOND EDIT is to an RFA- I didn't strike it, I didn't demand a CU. I just tagged it. --King Öomie 15:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was not getting defensive, I was genuinely asking. Their post isn't all that helpful anyway in that it's full of anecdotal stuff and a light claim to WP:MUSIC policies. Luminifer (talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A CU would not be completely out-of-order here though. It is an odd-duck edit from a dormant account. They tend to have a meaty odour to them. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, checkuser isn't magic, it needs something to check against. --King Öomie 15:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article was birth'd by an IP. The check would be between the 'potential pork', that mother IP and any other accounts that were created from that IP. I think the convo is going off-topic. Chat should stick to the merits of article subject and its keepability. The Real Libs-speak politely 15:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Skater I presume has my page watchlisted, and involved himself without either of us asking him (not that there's a problem with that). If you have a specific issue with either of our behavior, I suggest you do something about it, rather than pointing to it to attempt to make your case whenever someone votes delete. So far we have your Keep, and two others from very new accounts. Mozucat appears to be a new account from an experienced user (User:Mozucat/workshops), but the other is an obvious SPA. And by the way, Libs didn't ask me to come here and vote Delete. He asked me to make my own judgement, as he's done in the past- and in the past, I've disagreed with his vote. --King Öomie 14:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "do something about it" because so far, I was WP:AGF. Canvassing does not require that you ask an editor to get involved - it simply involves posting it in forums in which a biased outcome is expected, or with non-neutral language - which COULD be applied here. I am not sure what I would do about it in any case. Regarding your claim that I dispute every delete vote - this in fact my first comment on the matter (it was Spitfire who took issue before), and this is in response to libs' personal attacks on a user and lack of WP:AGF. In fact, the opposite is the case here - every single keep vote is being challenged as being from an SPA. As I said, so far, I have been trying to WP:AGF. Luminifer (talk) 14:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They are questionable because they are 'out-of-the-blue' from accounts which have contributed nothing. Look through the entire AfD listing for every subject matter... votes are questioned all the time when they come from editors who have never done anything before. You can smell the meat on this one from a mile away. Hey King do you want a similarity?... Luminifer is a member of a band called Pain Hertz. Mozocat has posted here about the band 'Brooklyn band, Pain Hertz, has done this great 'mash-up' cover of Danzig's Mother and Michael Jackson" ... And Mozocat is linked as a "friend" of Luminifer on pretty much all of his LastFM profiles. AND... surprise, surprise... Luminifer is listed as a friend on Mozucat's Last.FM profile pages.links galore Ooo Ooo that smell... ? The Real Libs-speak politely 15:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ha ha. Very interesting, but I think you are reading too much into the closed network that is underground New York City music, and the internet... Luminifer (talk) 15:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amalthya is as well. Suddenly allegations of canvassing ring hollow. --King Öomie 15:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who you expect to be commenting on a page besides people who are very familiar with the band (see my complain below). Regardless I've now figured out how to get outside input so we should see what happens from here. Luminifer (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We definitely need outside input, as the personal attacks have gotten out of hand. Never mind that none of the standard protocols at Wikipedia:Guide to deletion were followed when listing this AfD, such as "It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion. Do not notify bot accounts or people who have made only insignificant 'minor' edits. To find the main contributors, look in the page history" and "Place a notification on significant pages that link to your nomination, to enable those with related knowledge to participate in the debate.". Luminifer (talk) 15:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No no no, don't start backpedaling into MY faults here (you appear to have found the AFD just fine). You brought your personal friends into this after accusing me of votestacking. They're FANS OF THE BAND- did you not expect them to vote keep? --King Öomie 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is only half of what was not done in this case - and in fact it wasn't the 'required' half. Maybe you assumed (rightfully) that I would find it, but it still is apparently not "civil". As I'm a major editor of this article, of course I am going to vote keep, so that is not neutral either. You did none of the steps required to get outside input - and I was unaware of these steps until I did some reading recently, thanks to Spitfire's notice above. Also, please don't assume people are my friends because they added me on some social networking site - I will accept anyone's add. Finally, I never accused you of votestacking - you have been quite reasonable in most regards. I suggesting that Libs' actions could be perceived as possibly unintentional votestacking. Luminifer (talk) 15:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who do I expect to comment? I don't know, maybe someone who can possibly vote neutrally. Someone who will read the article with reference to the notability guidelines, check the sources, all that good stuff. Someone not invited here because they were a fan. --King Öomie 15:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not like the implications there. If you do not properly notify the people who can vote "neutrally" (as I've just done and as you should have done when you created this AfD), the only people who will be voting are those who happen upon the page on their own (typically fans) -- and the people who read YOUR talk page (and the person who asked you to nominate it, thus guaranteeing two "votes" - but again, this is not a ballot, right?). Hopefully now this will be remedied. Luminifer (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. In the interest of WP:OUTING, I won't be posting google searches here, but it's generally recommended that you be open with your conflict of interest or involvement, lest users feel deceived when it's discovered. --King Öomie 15:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well hey, whaddya know. --King Öomie 15:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what you may think, this should be judged on its merits according to WP:MUSIC, and is not a ballot, so the admin will have to decide. I do not appreciate the invasions of privacy so I may stay out of things from this point on. Luminifer (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If posting a link to a section of this website that you wrote is an invasion of privacy, I don't know what to tell you. And don't worry, at this point I am intimately aware that this isn't a ballot. --King Öomie 15:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to libs posting links that may or may not have been to me on social networking sites. I believe that comes close to WP:OUTING, regardless of whether or not it's actually me (as described in the policy). If that's what's going to be going on here, then I have had enough. Luminifer (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A google search revealed that you had prior contact with two SPAs that appeared to support an AFD that you're vested in. This was in no way linked to your identity. --King Öomie 16:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Links were posted to actual profile pages, again who may or may not be me WP:OUTING specifically says not to acknowledge it), associating similar names to the names involved here, which is not conclusive but is still a sketchy thing to post. I am not saying it is WP:OUTING exactly, but it makes me uncomfortable enough that such things are being posted here. As libs themselves stated, this is all distracting from the actual discussion of notability - but libs continues to post such things anyway. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest does not affect this discussion, as it is based only on the actual notability as discussed. Arguments can be made, but not proven, for canvassing on either side, but this is not a ballot, as we keep saying. This needs to be decided on the notability alone. Luminifer (talk) 16:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm done with this. The impropriety on both sides was minor. If you really want to, a checkuser can blank out all revisions that contained that link. It's really just a Google result page, which happened to link to a profile page. As far as I can tell, Libs only posted it here. Do whatever you feel you need to do. --King Öomie 16:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oversight, I mean. Wow. That only went uncorrected for five and half hours. --King Öomie 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who, exactly, are the "two or more independently notable musicians" in the band? Also note that passing one of the criteria at WP:MUSIC does guarantee notability, it says right at the top of the criteria, that "A musician...may be notable if it meets any one of the following criteria" (emphasis mine). Subject of article still has insufficient coverage in reliable sources. L0b0t (talk) 21:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated above (in all that heated text), (Carmine Guida is a famous instructor/musician, Nick Wolven is a published science fiction author, Michael Kaplan is now working with Joe Bergamini and Jimmy Wilgus of 4Front... Luminifer (talk) 21:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at all those articles, I have to say all of them should go to AfD, none of those musicians or authors or bands meet the inclusion criteria at Wikipedia. L0b0t (talk) 22:53, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is interesting, but will not resolve in time for this debate to finish. Should we have an extension, go with Michael Kaplan being notable (kind of a weak argument), or merge with Carmine Guida? Luminifer (talk) 23:20, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is already there .... unreferenced, and as far as I can see, really independent references are not available. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment This isn't relevant to the discussion of notability, but to the discussions regarding accusations of canvassing on my part. At the Pain Hertz myspace page there was apparently an announcement via bulletin, followed by a blog entry a few days later [37]. This could account for the increased visibility. It also contains information not yet incorporated into the article, so who knows. Luminifer (talk) 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question-Luminifer has your band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if you and your band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. The Real Libs-speak politely 01:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I resent the implications there. Regardless of your unfounded suspicions regarding my identity, you are not supposed to discuss who you think I am, or might be, in compliance with WP:OUTING. Please refrain from attempting to reveal you who think I am in a public forum, as this is grossly against policy. Luminifer (talk) 01:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me rephrase Wiki Libs' question: Luminifer has the band ever opened for anyone of significance for an an extended tour? An extended tour with a notable act would help improve notability. A one shot deal as a support act means nothing. But if the band toured for an extended period with a notable act it would help. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea. I'm not the expert on this band, which is why I created their page (and which is why I created the 100+ pages I have created on here). Luminifer (talk) 15:04, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You created the page because you are not the expert on the band .. that does not make any sense. However, whether you are an expert or not, you seem to be the most knowledgeable (as you created the page), and are probably of all wiki-editors, you are an 'expert' on this band (again, you did quite some research finding all the references that you did find). I am hence surprised that you did not find any which do satisfy our hunger for independent reliable sources, but found only the dependent or unreliable ones. I hope you can find editors who can help us further, because we are not getting anywhere. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for being so civil in this matter - considering the reactions that occurred above (even down to false accusations of SPA's for User:Mozucat, I really appreciate it. However, I couldn't find anything, and I cleaned out my print sources, so it may be that there aren't enough sources. I created it under the presumption that point 6 in WP:MUSIC was justification for it; if it's not, so be it. Due to the attempts at WP:OUTING and privacy attacks involved here (regardless of whether correct, they are incredibly unsettling), I'll be leaving wikipedia anyway, so if no one else finds sources, I guess that's it. Thanks for your time! Luminifer (talk) 22:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment "Because of our past problems, opinions offered by new or anonymous users are often met with suspicion and may be discounted during the closing process. This decision is made at the discretion of the closing admin after considering the contribution history and pattern of comments. In practice, civil comments and logical arguments are often given the benefit of doubt while hostile comments are presumed to be bad-faith. Please note that verifiable facts and evidence are welcome from anybody and will be considered during the closing process." Wikipedia:Guide to deletion .. please don't respond to this comment, it's just a quotation. Luminifer (talk) 04:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment - it's well-researched articles getting deleted that discourages newcomers (or anyone) from creating articles at all. this is (was, considering that I'm just about done here considering the personal attacks and privacy violations that this AfD caused) why I created so many new articles (over 100) - and almost all of them so far have stayed, and it's a great joy when someone who _actually_ knows about the subject comes along and adds something. I guess that's about all I have left to say before I'm done with this. Luminifer (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe true, Liminifer, and that is sometimes bitey, but, and I am sure that you understand that as well, the articles may be well researched, and be made by newcomers, but things still have to pass a certain level. I mean, e.g. many people who have finished a university (exact sciences) have one or two papers on their name, quite some high-school students have played in a band during their study, and many people have helped out in a local charity shop, and those three people have their local notability. But that does not mean that some of my friends, or the woman where one of my friends last week bought a second hand skirt are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Since we are here at AfD, this is a border-case (it is sourced, there is quite some, it actually passes a rule in WP:MUSIC), and we would only need a bit more). Deletion does not have to be the end of it, it can still be either undeleted afterwards, or started fresh when such sources do appear or are found. You could even request for it to be userfied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Having articles deleted is discouraging" is an entirely invalid argument. This isn't the place to overthrow the notability guidelines. --King Öomie 13:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Absolutely. To use a phrase KingOomie likes to when trying to state something that's not exactly in the right context: "Just saying".
  • Delete. Not a notable band, no reliable sources. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Vukovic (footballer)

[edit]
Vladimir Vukovic (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't play for a professional team and hasn't played at senior international level Spiderone 16:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 14:39, 25 September 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) 00:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Friends @ Five

[edit]
Friends @ Five (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local newscast. Um, that's it. It's a local newscast. Not encyclopaedic. Not notable. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's wrong with an article on this? Fellow people that watch the show can find it informative. It's not just "local", since it is simulcast on the web. Many of the viewers are either military or have military spouses and use it to keep up on local news when they are stationed elsewhere. Shaw AFB is located less than 40 miles away from the news station. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 14:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, Today in L.A. is notable, non-local, and encyclopaedic? I've never heard of it. BlueChainsawMan (talk) 15:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete The regional Emmy made me step back and ask myself if that award made this show notable, I don't think so. Without additional coverage in reliable sources the regional Emmy just isn't enough. The existance of an article of a similar type of program in a different market does not have anything to do with this article. Just because that article exists doesn't mean this one should. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 18:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what would make it more reliable? Contact with an anchor? So an innovative concept that has actually won an award for such isn't enough? BlueChainsawMan (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To show that the show is notable, find significant coverage from reliable sources that are independent of the subject. You might also be interested in an essay that has been written about TV programming. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 20:05, 25 September 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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fallen: 2012

[edit]
The Fallen: 2012 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Other than the single reference in the article, I cannot find this film's existance online. The single reference being used is trivial in passing, and is used throughout the article to give it undue weight (the reference is about a birth of a white buffalo which is how I found this page). This film is not even listed in the IMDB. The author's only edits are to the article, and adding the article to a list of other 2012 doomsday prophecy films. And this in particular just appears to be an indie film trying to cash in on the 2012 phenomenon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:14, 25 September 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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thukalamkuzhiyil

[edit]
Thukalamkuzhiyil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. A local family with no evidence of notability Salih (talk) 12:51, 25 September 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maura Murray

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Maura Murray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP1E. She's known only for being missing. Coverage is local also. So she's limited to local notability. Also fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Lara 12:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Page has been moved to: Disappearance of Maura Murray - --Cyclopia (talk) 00:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think Lara is interpreting NOTNEWS too widely here. NOTNEWS says "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article", and "breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information", but neither of those applies here. The case definitely meets the WP:GNG, as it has been covered indepth in multiple reliable secondary sources. The coverage is national and ongoing, so it meets the criteria for notability of criminal acts, which covers disappearances where the police suspect a criminal act: Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Notability of criminal acts. I certainly will write the sources I found into the article tomorrow; I regret not sourcing it properly before. Fences&Windows 00:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I Dont Know Keep i would argue that this fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E but the girl who was killed at the red sox rally thing after the world series in 04 has or had her own page for just being killed but if you could rework this article Into The Dissaperance of Maura Murrey then Keep but jenna is right its not your average missing person a car crash and never seen again? AKWARD BigPadresDude 00:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I note that the article has been moved, however that fails to address the fact that this still fails WP:BLP1E as a bio, or WP:NOTNEWS as an article on the disappearance. I do not see any lasting significance here. Kevin (talk) 02:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The news routinely reports on young, missing females. Usually white. This is not historical. Or interesting. Her CDs were left in her car along with a book? Do tell :P Law type! snype? 04:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Interesting" and "historical" are just your opinions and interestigness is not an objective criteria. I don't find it interesting either, but the media thought otherwise. BLP1E does not apply since the rename -we're talking of the event. --Cyclopia (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bearing in mind that her family and friends will read this discussion, please have more respect. Fences&Windows 17:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I must protest very strongly at these calls for deletion. Vaguely referring to policy is not the same as reasoned argument. They are incorrect for three reasons: 1. NOTNEWS does not say what everyone thinks it says, as I explained above. NOTNEWS is not a blanket reason to not cover events. 2. This is a possible criminal event, so it is covered by our notability rules on criminal events, not by BLP1E. 3. There is ample national American news coverage, which I have linked to above, and which I will now incorporate into the article. Fences&Windows 14:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, sources added. National in depth coverage has included Fox's Line Up, Nancy Grace's Cold Cases, CNN's American Morning, 20/20, and Montel Williams. Fences&Windows 17:05, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it falls under BLP1E. WP:BLP is policy. — Jake Wartenberg 21:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let me phrase that better: citing BLP1E as a reason for deletion is not appropriate. The article was always about her disappearance and is now titled to reflect this, so it is in compliance with what BLP1E says: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases, a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options." As the event is notable, we should keep the article. If you want to delete, you'd better not simply cite NOTNEWS and BLP1E, as they aren't valid reasons to delete this article. Fences&Windows 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:56, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Chalk me up as one of those who greatly dislikes the inclusion of articles simply because the subjects kick up a lot of ephemeral fuss on the 24-hour-news cycle. That being said, the renaming took BLP1E out of the running, the article is focused on the event rather than on the person, it's heavily sourced and from non-local sources as well. While NOTNEWS is also being cited, the text is quite clear: it pertains mostly to individuals, not events, and only those events which are "[r]outine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism" are specifically enjoined; I'd hate to be the one daring to make a case for the Boston Globe, ABC News or CNN being tabloids. I'd like to advocate deletion, but legitimate policy grounds to do so just aren't present here.  RGTraynor  00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - in this case, I feel there is sufficient coverage, over a sufficiently long period of time, for WP:BLP1E to not apply. Some disappearances are notable, and this seems to be one of them. Robofish (talk) 00:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Some of the things said above about NOTNEWS are not correct. It certainly does apply to routine news coverage about events such as kidnappings, murders, and executions, and it does apply to routine announcements in non tabloid publications such as say the NY Times or the Wall Street Journal. However, the fact that this particular disappearence has received repeated coverage at intervals for at least 5 years (2004-2009) means that it is not just a transient news event and thus is notable. Rusty Cashman (talk) 01:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from nom. Regarding NOTNEWS, as Rusty pointed out, NOTNEWS does apply to this sort of coverage. It is routine for local newspapers to cover missing persons in their area. Tabloid journalism is not limited to tabloid newspapers. Tabloids just print pretty much exclusively tabloid journalism. Specifically speaking on this article as it is now, BLP1E does indeed no longer apply because the article has been retitled to the event, which is what 1E dictates. Whether or not NOTNEWS continues to apply depends on how significant the non-local coverage is. Are the pieces original stories or are they merely reprints of the local? WP:N/CA comes in at this point. Missing person cases where criminal conduct is suspected are not inherently notable. In fact, it gives a strong argument against keeping some of the recent cases we've seen come up at AFD.

    Intense media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources. However, since Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, it may be better in the first instance to create a Wikinews article about it until the event is mentioned by a significant number of third-party sources that have at least national or global scope.

    So the question is, how "intense" has the media coverage been, and do we consider this a "high profile" case? I think of Lacy Peterson when I am considering what a high profile missing persons case is. Lara 16:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • When you see national media stories like this [52] 4 years after the event, and local media stories like [53] even more recently, and when a google search for Maura Murray yeilds 690,000 hits I think you have passed the threshold of a transient news story. This doesn't seem like even a marginal case to me. There are plenty of marginally source articles about one news cycle only topics that deserve deletion, but I don't see this as beeing one of them. Rusty Cashman (talk) 23:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, it appears that this particular case is being used as part of a campaign to have a cold case unit created for NH [54], which would make it part of the "incorporation in an important public debate" notability recognized by for example WP:News articles.
      • Comment: In addressing what is and is not in NOTNEWS, allow me to quote the pertinent section: "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic ... While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information." If anyone can point out where the rule states that news coverage of kidnappings, murders and executions (for instance) falls under its aegis, feel free.  RGTraynor  01:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You started your quote late. The sentence before what you quoted says: " However, Wikipedia is not a news source: it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability ". That wording applies to all news. However, it doesn't (at least as far as I am concerned) apply here to this particular article because this event has received repeated coverage years after the fact. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The section you are quoting is not from WP:NOTNEWS. In point of fact, the sentence before the section I quoted is "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own." You're quoting from the GNG, a guideline generally trumped by verifiability.  RGTraynor  08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and WP:BLP1E. Non-biographical article. Chuthya (talk) 20:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in fact it is no more listed as a biography -it has been moved for this reason. --Cyclopia - talk 21:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. BLP1E applies to any article. Law type! snype? 21:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Per nom" and a vaguewave at BLP1E isn't reasoned argument. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E applies to biographies of people only known for one event, not to "every article". They way BLP1E applies in this case is the following wording, which I think is being overlooked: "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event ... a redirect of the person's name to the event article [is] usually the better option." Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts) should be our guide here. This is not a biography of Maura Murray, it is about her disappearance, a notable event covered many times by local and national media over a five year period. Fences&Windows 22:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E is no longer relevant as the article has been renamed to "Disappearance of Maura Murray". That leaves only the notability concern and I can't see it given the amount of both local and national coverage. I think the original nominator tried to claim all the coverage was local but that is silly as Nancy Grace/CNN are not local. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair to the nominator, the sources included at nomination were all local, and national coverage may not have been clear from a quick search. So the claim wasn't silly, just wrong. Fences&Windows 04:14, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are several comments above about BLP1E no longer being applicable as the article has been moved. I think that would be a fair call to make if the title did not include her name. If there was some connection to another case we could rename it to Coed disappearances or whatever, but this article is still about 1 event, connected to 1 person. In my view, this still clearly falls under BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This would mean that no articles on events where a single person has been the main or only subject involved would be allowed, regardless of the event notability? This makes little sense and WP:BLP1E explicitly says that the article should cover the event and not the person, that is what is happening here. BLP1E is to avoid having "biographies" where all the weight is made to a single event, not to prohibit covering events themselves. --Cyclopia - talk 13:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as renamed The event is notable per WP:GNG and WP:N/CA as her disappearance has received “received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.” Renaming and reworking of the article correctly applies WP:BLP1E in that the article now covers the event and not the person. Nolamgm (talk) 23:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep - nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 16:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benat Achiary

[edit]
Benat Achiary (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not satisfy the criteria detailed at WP:MUSICBIO. He/she has released 1 CD by German label FMP (according to the article) and there is no coverage by reliable third party sources. ƒ(Δ)² 11:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The second site doesn't constitute a reliable source, and the third isn't in English. However the first one might indicate notability. The first source is fine (it's an interview), however that's the only reliable one I could find. He does, in fact, have a collection of Basque CDs to his name, all produced in collaboration with other people, I do not know if that is enough for notability. If I could get a third opinion, I'll withdraw/continue this AfD. ƒ(Δ)² 15:37, 25 September 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. "Keep" in the sense of "do not hit the delete button." Opinions differ about whether this should be retained as a separate article or merged (and where to?), but that is a matter for continued talk page discussion. I predict that this will be seen as "old news" in time and merged somewhere, probably before they switch to Comic Sans in 2010.  Sandstein  17:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verdanagate

[edit]
Verdanagate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Absolutely non-notable. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, and this isn't news anyway. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 11:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and/or redirect to IKEA. There seems to be a few examples of coverage in reliable sources, but this is classic slow-news-day news that probably warrants a sentence or two in IKEA at the most - spinning it out into a genuine "controversy" seems to border on original research, I'm not seeing that level of dismay in the reliable sources cited. Serious WP:NOTNEWS. ~ mazca talk 13:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to IKEA Catalogue. Propaniac (talk) 13:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect, agree with Propaniac. Also note that this title is a neologism that is doomed never to achieve currency, given the slight scope of the "event" it refers to. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hilarious: Look at all that mainstream coverage (2030 ghits for verdanagate; 121,000 ikea verdana; over 70 gnews hits), but probably best covered in IKEA with a redirect. --Milowent (talk) 14:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at worst, possibly keep. The article title is ridiculous, but the event/controversy appears notable enough. Ordinarily I'd see this as an obvious merge, but when the NYTimes coverage is a prominently displayed piece by one of the paper's major cultural critics (Edward Rothstein), a separate article isn't out of the question. Might be better to just wait and revisit the question in a month or two, to see if there's any durable impact. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Smerge (selectively merge) to Ikea, as called for in the [Talk:Verdanagate#Merge proposal|merger proposal]] on the talk page of the article. The topic deserves mention in the Ikea article. The first choice when a company is in the news, is to add that event to the company's article. There is really not that much that needs to be said about this. There was some reaction to the change from "the typography community" which was noted by some mainstream news sources, but per WP:NOTNEWS this does not require a permanent encyclopedia article on the brief news flurry. Edison (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, merge at worst. The article title is what the matter is known as. Significant for anyone interested in corporate redesign. Tsinfandel (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, merge at worst. The matter was widely covered by several sectors of society, including the business community, academia, and as shown by the references, by the mainstream press in both the US and the UK. Time, The Guardian and The New York Times are all serious enough not to waste their valuable space with mere "slow-news-day" trivia.--Technopat (talk) 23:44, 28 September 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) 00:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fred W. Hunt

[edit]
Fred W. Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It's not clear that this painter meets WP:BIO. Coverage accessible through on Google is apparently limited to this AskArt entry, itself submitted by a person from the association he is said to chair.  Sandstein  11:06, 25 September 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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jeffrey Bruma

[edit]
Jeffrey Bruma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't think being an unused substitute against Porto is enough to meet WP:ATHLETE. Also there is a lack of independent sources meaning he fails WP:GNG. If it is kept, it probably needs a bit of cleaning up. Spiderone 10:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't Delete- He is part of Carlo Ancellotti's plans, why make another article once he makes his first team debut. I'm the one who wrote this article, and everything is corrected, he has a full Biography of himself in the citation below, look at it.Sonyds13 (talk) 22:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand it, if there is added material, it doesn't even take an admin to restore, you merely have to rewrite the article. You would need to make it very plain on the talk p;.. how it differs from the deleted article to avoid deletion ass unaltered re-creation, and if it does get speedied, then go to deletion review. But if he does make a professional appearance, I cannot imagine the article would not be permitted there, and I hope no admin would be so careless as to G4. DGG ( talk ) 04:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is in and listed as a current member of the Dutch U-21 squad which should be good enough reason to give him some space. But the article should at least give some facts as date and place of birth and his Feijenoord period to meet minimum standards of other player's bio's.24.207.124.122 (talk) 04:17, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Papa Niang

[edit]
Papa Niang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Already tagged as an article that may fail notability guidelines. The PROD was contested saying "highest tier and youth international" which isn't enough to pass WP:ATHLETE. He also fails WP:GNG as it stands. Spiderone 08:20, 25 September 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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Xhevdet Gela

[edit]
Xhevdet Gela (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Plays in a league that isn't professional and hasn't achieved enough coverage to meet WP:GNG Spiderone 08:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arto Lindberg

[edit]
Arto Lindberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still no assertion of notability made. The PROD remover said the Finnish league is the highest level and therefore professional but this list says otherwise Spiderone 08:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does though! - he hasn't played in a fully-pro league, and he hasn't reveived significant coverage! GiantSnowman 15:31, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 21:30, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pub Rock Tour

[edit]
Pub Rock Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable concert tour. No more notable than any of the other 10,000 concert tours that happen every year, and we don't have an article for them. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:GNG. Nouse4aname (talk) 08:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC) Also nominating the following articles for similar reasoning:[reply]

Runnin' Wild Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Legal Tender Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
No Guts, No Glory Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Keep, no valid reason given for deletion. Despite the nominator's claim, we have around a thousand article on concert tours[60], and tours by notable bands will generally pass the GNG due to published reviews of the concert. Articles like these don't strike me as a whole lot different from the articles on the individual seasons of professional sports teams -- easy enough to document, of interest primarily to the most devoted fans of the team/group involved. Boring the average Wikipedia user to tears isn't grounds for deletion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannes Nordström

[edit]
Johannes Nordström (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 23:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:ATHLETE, the media coverage supplied doesn't appear to be more than trivial as required by WP:GNG, and consensus has long been that youth caps don't afford notability. I think this is the wrong article to make a stand on. This is a 16-year-old who hasn't even played for his club. Recreate when he's actually done something in his career. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 07:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deljan Bregasi

[edit]
Deljan Bregasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This PROD appears to have been removed as part of a mass removal of every PROD I've made recently. There is no evidence to suggest that he's played a professional match and youth caps, especially under 17 ones, aren't notable. Spiderone 07:33, 25 September 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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amar Kadić

[edit]
Amar Kadić (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Argument for removal of PROD was that he plays at the highest level of Bosnian football. Unfortunately, there is no evidence that this is professional so he still fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG Spiderone 07:27, 25 September 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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meteorologist George Wright

[edit]
Meteorologist George Wright (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is primarily a promotional article about a meteorologist, but even if cleaned up, I'm not sure this meets notability standards. Most ghits are promotional or mentioning a case where he was an expert witness. I can't find any article on him personally. Prod was declined, and not sure if this meets speedy criteria. Mr. Vernon (talk) 06:42, 25 September 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. I do know that I voted in this, but the articles have been merged into an entirely new article, which will distort things significantly. The new article on Black Widow murders should be renominated under a different rationale if it is to be deleted. NW (Talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Widow murders (neé Olga Rutterschmidt)

[edit]
Black Widow murders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BLP1E; a person notable for only one event. The event itself isn't important enough to justify coverage - while sad, it fails WP:NOT#NEWS by a long way. Ironholds (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • For some editors, the standard of notability requires that books be written about the crimes or the criminals. For others, tons of coverage on CNN or FOX suffices — This case has both. Witness the book by King and the extensive coverage in the Los Angeles Times. The true measure is not the types of the sources at all nor their circulations, which is perhaps where people are going wrong. It is whether the sources cover the subject in depth. The book and the LA Times coverage do. The PNC appears to be satisfied for this case. Uncle G (talk) 15:12, 25 September 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 (non-admin closure) SparksBoy (talk) 05:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jacques St-Cyr ballet dancer

[edit]
Jacques St-Cyr ballet dancer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Notability issues SparksBoy (talk) 04:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unless I see some reliable sources covering this dancer, doesn't seem notable. A quick gsearch and gnews search didn't turn up significant coverage.  JUJUTACULAR | TALK  05:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least in the first instance. Since the article states that he was a soloist over 20 years ago, a gnews search (without even the "all dates" setting!) hardly counts as due diligence. That he was a name to mention is borne out by these remnants, and a google search with a slight variation in spelling ("saint" rather than "st") is also somewhat more revealing. Since dancers don't get the same sort of coverage that sportsmen do, it's hard for somebody not in the field to judge notability. This is the sort of doubtful case where notifying somebody who knows about professional dance in Canada (through user categories?) might be helpful to an informed discussion. --Paularblaster (talk) 07:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Paularblaster's persuasive comments. Google News turns up a few reviews from the 1980's, including one from the NYTimes, identifying the subject as a principal dancer with a major Canadian ballet troupe. That should establish notability; there's no great hurry in turning up the inevitable print sources, and there was no need to AFD this a few hours after its creation without trying to help the creator clean this mess up and resolve the COI issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think I found the same NYT article and news link that those above me did. It's not much, but I think it's enough to establish a tenuous claim to notability, and definitely enough to act on the advice of the above comments (improve and look for an expert). While there are still no sources to verify any of the content, http://mariajacquestango.com/accueil_en.html indicates he's still active, so there may very well be some truth. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 20:06, 25 September 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. Sources were added during the AfD, meaning that the deletion rationale no longer applies at least in part.  Sandstein  17:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yoshie Takeuchi

[edit]
Yoshie Takeuchi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced BLP, questional notability, author appears to be the subject of the article. Eeekster (talk) 03:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • 2 cents from a lurker who randomly saw this while bored at work - First off, she's definatly not the one who wrote it, if only because her English is better than the article was created with. The announces from the major stations tend to end up with a significant fan base, and on top of her news reporting she also co-hosts Music Station which is a really popular prime time show, so I suggest Paularblaster is right it just being a fan.
Second off, while the article at the moment is definatly failing the notability guidlines, as an individual she definatly meets both WP:GNG and wp:entertainer. Theres a bunch more sources on her Japanese wiki entry (http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E7%AB%B9%E5%86%85%E7%94%B1%E6%81%B5) but its hard to find sources for Japanese people anyway because magazines and newspapers don't archive their articles on the internet in Japan. Even the online ones usually delete stuff after a few weeks.
Anyway, I'm not !voting keep because I would feel hypocritical since I have no intention of fixing up the article, but thats my interpritation of the situation. Maybe someone who knows how that stuff works could post this to wikiproject japan? 123.222.137.153 (talk) 10:13, 25 September 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. NW (Talk) 03:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Construction equipment theft

[edit]
Construction equipment theft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe the subject of the article may at some point meet the guidelines for notability. At the present time, the article has no reliable sources to verify most of the claims contained. Fails WP:V and WP:RS. It also seems to straddle the line of synthesis and original research. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 07:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article can't really be kept as is, because the sources do not match the information contained in the article. If Edison is going to volunteer to edit this article in the direction of having even a few properly sourced, reliable statements, I'd be happy to withdraw the nomination... which wasn't based on notability, but rather on being original research and/or synthesis. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 05:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Jake Wartenberg 02:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Certainly different kinds of theft create different issues for society, which might deserve treatment in an encyclopedic way. Construction equipment theft might (for example) raise issues of public safety, or it might lead to more costly or inferior construction, or it might feed a black market for parts, or what have you. Demographics and sociology of different types of theft would also be interesting, as would police methods. I think a *lot* of types of theft could deserve an article. Gruntler (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I originally typed in "Delete", thinking this subject would be very difficult to source. But a Google search for "construction equipment" + theft turns up this online bulletin board [75], and this "Builders tell how to fight on-site construction theft", and this [76] and the interesting fact that "Nearly 40 percent of all construction and agricultural equipment theft occurs in just five states, according to a report released today by the National Equipment Register (NER), a database company established to reduce heavy-equipment theft rates and increase recoveries of stolen equipment." [77]. For what it's worth, Lo-Jack (maker of anti-theft products) calls this "a problem that costs construction companies up to $1 billion per year in lost assets" [78] (actually, it appears more reliable sources say the same thing); Google News archives search [79] shows this source from the UK [80]; and this [81]. If sourcing exists to create a good article on a subject that otherwise meets Wikipedia policies and guidelines, it's not up to us to refuse it space in the encyclopedia. Apparently there's a lot of information out there from reliable sources, so let's keep the page with an improvement tag until somebody adds to it. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Currently the article needs a ton of work, but "if the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD." Gruntler (talk) 05:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - a ton of work is an understatement. The entire article needs to be re-written from the ground up. I doubt a single statement could be kept as is. Keeping it, without a volunteer to fix it, would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 06:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
would be basically keeping a placeholder for the concept, because no one seems to want to fix it. We call them "stubs". I'll put in 10 minutes of work into it. JohnWBarber (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stubs have the same guidelines as regular articles. Wikipedia does not allow introduction of improperly sourced material, regardless of the notability of the subject. Removing all of the improperly sourced statements would have left a blank article. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Term seems to come up at doj, only one matches exactly but many of these seem relevant, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&safe=off&q=site%3Ausdoj.gov+%22construction+equipment%22+theft&aq=&aqi=&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=7960896364bf1ed8 I haven't read the article but presumably it could be stubbed if really bad and leave some search links like this on talk page for a while. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:19, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep article needs a lot of improvement and citations, but is notable UltraMagnus (talk) 16:27, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw Nomination - Due to some hard work at completely re-writing the article by Gruntler and JohnWBarber, I'm now willing to withdraw the nomination. In response to some comments on the board, however, I'd like to remind everyone that this article wasn't nominated for notability issues, as I've mentioned several times. The article was nominated for being original research which was not sourced properly. Regards, and any admin may now close. --OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 00:47, 26 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

William Swanberg

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
William Swanberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems the previous AfD was closed on procedural grounds, but that doesn't validate the article. On first glance it falls foul of WP:BLP1E; Swanberg is notable for a single event, specifically shoplifting Lego bricks. Coverage is given by reliable sources but, true to form, is focused entirely around the case, and doesn't justify a standalone article for this chap. An article for the crime might be an idea if it didn't fall foul of WP:NOT#NEWS so comprehensively; coverage is all from around the time of the crime, except for a single note in Oregon Live from when he was sentenced. In my personal opinion (which is obviously just backed up by common sense, not any kind of RS) this case is one of the "amusing" human interest stories that newspapers and websites run with, and the news reports are worth even less than they already would be. Ironholds (talk) 02:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Clear BLP1E case. What's up with these random Oregon criminal BLPs? Not encyclopedic. Not a biography. Lara 03:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old news, small news... even in the LEGO community (which I have some familiarity with) it was a minor sensation for a while at best, but it's a classic one event "bio". Try putting together a comprehensive bio to see what I mean. Where'd he go to school? What's he doing now (that's notable)? You can't. No sources. No story. Non notable person. I get way more Ghits than he does, and I'm not notable. (try it, put in "William Swanberg" (with quotes around the name, and with or without LEGO) then put in "Larry Pieniazek" (again, quoted name, and with or without LEGO)... I blow his doors off both times.) Delete ++Lar: t/c 03:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If there was an article on ticket switching, I would say Merge and redirect but I don't know if one exists. He is notable not only for being the Lego Bandit, but for using this method of shoplifting. Until I can find such an article, I abstain because I think people like him belong in an article on a bigger subject. Tuxide (talk) 03:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a human interest story. He is not going down in history as the Lego-bandit. When I see a biography, that may have been created by a knee-jerk reaction to numerous local news stories, I have to wonder if that 'kid in Africa' is going to need this guy's 'bio' in 15 years. Then I think, no. Law type! snype? 06:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see anything unrelated to the Lego theft. Even if criminality extends over a period of time, it needs to be something extraordinary to make it past WP:BLP1E. It is particularly poorly sourced as well. Kevin (talk) 06:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - classic WP:BLP1E situation. Utterly non-encyclopedic - Alison ❤ 07:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or merge - We're in WP:BLP1E territory here, but the quality of coverage and unusual type of the case make it notable in my opinion. Still, maybe better covered within some other article (even if I wonder what one). --Cyclopia (talk) 14:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, LEGO theft? Haha, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Construction equipment theft and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Laptop_theft. Hmm. Or perhaps Target theft and merge with Claude Allen --Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am happy you are laughing, but what are you trying to communicate, exactly? --Cyclopia (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Levity, and I failed, I guess. Below follows my substantive comments. --Milowent (talk) 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This is really an article about an event, not a person (though titled as such for categorization), so its not really WP:BLP1E in that context. The article doesn't cover his schooling and personal life, etc., like a typical bad bio page -- its focused on the notable event. I think the essay Wikipedia:News_articles is also useful for consideration. In the prior AFD (which was yesterday???) SarekOfVulcan noted: "the 1E led to changes in training for Target employees, so I'd lean towards notability here." The News articles essay suggests that notability can occur when "The subject of the news item has set, or has caused to set, a precedent in some way" Its not a clear cut case, but I see no value in deletion.--Milowent (talk) 15:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but essays are.. well, essays. The previous AfD was closed due to procedural problems (see my nom) and the re-nom isn't worrying. Ironholds (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No encyclopedic significance. Every day, a few insignificant people get lots of press coverage in the "wacky news" section of newspapers because their trivial actions make it easy to write snappy headlines. Wikipedia notability isn't established by turnng up in the Jay Leno "Headlines" segment, and it shouldn't be established by turning up in the AP, UPI, Reuters, or Yahoo News equivalents. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In that this is a bio on someone who is notable for only one thing, BLP1E most certainly does apply. This is precisely what it was written for. I really wish people would stop creating this type of article. Lara 16:38, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ehm, you are !voting twice. Would you mind moving your comment below your previous !vote (or reformatting it, so to avoid it being confusing)? Thanks! --Cyclopia (talk) 16:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: What is the encyclopedic value of ANY article? The reason people keep "creating this type of article" is a form of consensus - evidence that people think these articles should exist. There is sufficient sourcing available for a verifiable and accurate article. The judgment of lack on encyclopedic significance is quite subjective. Luckily for us, the Father of History, Herodotus, was careful in making such value judgments. E.g., he passed on reports of Phoenician sailors that were roundly dismissed as myths at the time, yet were later invaluable to proving ancient circumnavigation of Africa. Perhaps this is not the most noble article on which to state an inclusionist manifesto, but why is the LEGO bandit truly less uncyclopedic than the 1922 Denver Mint Robbery, the 1983 Perth Mint Swindle, or 1998 Bank of America robbery? Is Mr. Swanberg less worthy because he stole massive amounts of a child's plaything instead of gold bars? His canvassing of 5 states and elaborate scheme of switching UPC labels, use of electronic communications, etc., should not be excluded simply because the topic of Lego theft also makes us chuckle. --Milowent (talk) 19:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per notability trough sources, might not be the most famous person amongst people but the sources indicates notability beyond doubt.--Judo112 (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron.
  • An actual biography is a BLP1E; this is not really a biography at all, its a documentation of a robbery scheme. We wouldn't have an article on the person if we had an article on the event, but the way the hive mind worked, this is where the event was documented. --Milowent (talk) 01:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article fails BLP1E for sure. However, as it is primarily about the event you could have gotten arround that by just renaming it great Lego theft or something, but that wouldn't help with the bigger problem, which is that the event itself fails the notability requirement. As WP:notability says: "it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability", and that is all you have for this event. This is a classic example of what people want to exclude when the say they don't want Wikipedia to turn into a news service. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear BLP1E and NOTNEWS violation. The event has no historical significance or any other sign of notability. Triplestop x3 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment re improvements to article: I did some reworking to the article and added some more citations, including to a 2006 WSJ article (a year after this story first broke) and 2009 North County times article that use the Swanberg case as an example of high-tech shoplifting scams which have become more common, and thus a big problem. NBC Nightly News also did a story on new shoplifting techniques in Nov 2006 that talked about Swanberg (based on the summary of sthe tory available from vanderbilt tv news archive). If the press is still mentioning this case years after the initial blitz of stories about it, it does have historical signifigance--Milowent (talk) 06:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is a fairly trivial mention, and still mentions the subject only in the context of the same Lego theft, therefore still fails WP:BLP1E. Kevin (talk) 06:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
29 sentences in a WSJ article is not trivial, and it explains the greater societal significance of the case. It even includes one of the WSJ's trademark sketches of Mr. Swanberg. When an event/person becomes a touchstone for discussion of a topic, I think it becomes notable. E.g., Robert Tappan Morris. --Milowent (talk) 13:02, 28 September 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. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Roland

[edit]
Alexis Roland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO and clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. also WP:ONEVENT applies here too. no significant coverage [82]. LibStar (talk) 07:13, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep Alexis Roland maybe fails WP:ATHLETE, but there is some coverage in reliable sources and I think she passes WP:BIO. I found a large article in NYTimes and profile in Huck Magazine. SkiNet.com says about her: At 10 years old, Alexis is sponsored by major brands; she rides on a custom board; she has appeared in a number of snowboard films; and she is a fierce presence on the competition circuit. Warren Miller Entertainment has officially tagged this next generation athlete as one to watch. This is on the borderline of notability. --Vejvančický (talk) 07:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 02:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in the NYT.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Hymns for Western Shores

[edit]
Eastern Hymns for Western Shores (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unconfirmed future album, with no tracklisting, or release date. Furthermore the "sources" are all message boards or blogs. Even if this was a real album, it's notability is questionable, as it is no more than a small collection of b-sides --T-rex 02:33, 25 September 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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Topiarte

[edit]
Topiarte (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:ORG, 1 hit in gnews [83]. LibStar (talk) 02:30, 25 September 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) 00:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone Dance

[edit]
Everyone Dance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod... brand new radio show with no references or signs of notability... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helsinki slang

[edit]
Helsinki slang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

an unreferenced article that has existed for over 3 years that is full of original research. whilst I don't doubt that Helsinki slang exists, all it deserves is a few lines in Finnish language. Helsinki slang gets little hits in gscholar [84] and gnews [85]. LibStar (talk) 02:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The topic seems sourcable and capable of meeting all Wikipedia policies and guidelines, which is a better way of assessing whether the subject deserves an article. I followed the link on the article page to the Finnish Wikipedia article on the subject, and that appears to have plenty of sources,[86] although I can't verify any of them. I've left notices at the talk pages of the creator and the first major contributor to the article, perhaps they'll be able to add sources. There is also a category at Wictionary called "Helsinki slang".[87] JohnWBarber (talk) 03:00, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Topic seems to be notable. Article needs work, especially sources. Northwestgnome (talk) 07:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
seems to be notable, does not mean notable...could you provide sources? LibStar (talk) 07:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It will be difficult to find any sources in English, but the Finnish version of the article [88] provides ISBNs for several dozen books about the topic, ranging from academic to humorous. Few of them are online, but this article [89] by the Finnish Literature Society can be used as a reference for the basics, and this article [90] in Helsingin Sanomat (Finland's main newspaper) notes that the 2001 Finlandia Prize (local literature Nobel) went to a Helsinki slang dictionary. Jpatokal (talk) 05:58, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I haven't looked into any sources yet, but, from reading the article, this seems to be describing dialect rather than slang, so a move may be in order. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But the established name in the native Finnish is stadin slangi ("slang of the city"), not stadin murre ("dialect of the city"). If Finns themselves call it a slang, shouldn't the English Wikipedia reflect it? JIP | Talk 13:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article needs work, but Helsinki slang (standin slangi) is an important and distinguished form of speech in Finland. There are tens, probably hundreds, of published works written about it (and in it), and the speech remains a constant point of interest for linguists. Several dictionaries exists, including this. The article would definitely need a history section to better establish significance. I can give it a shot, but finding English-language sources can be cumbersome. (teaser: stadin slangi, it turns out, is, due to the circumstances where it was born, a language spoken in Finnish grammar, but with vast majority of its vocabulary directly borrowed from Swedish, from Russian and, more lately, increasingly from English.) hydrox (talk) 16:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I have reformatted the article to better meet Wikipedia's standards and written an extensive history section with literacy references. Thanks to User:JIP and all others for your previous contributions. hydrox (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just in case there was any doubt about the meaning of my comments above. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

[[ ohidp996egdkshkjsfdjssfsorpprsfs'sflkksksbs jkjs'gs s' s ksj'''''oerrititfkklgshs;;;;;kl s d r[si w[wro ioi oriwwigirtwrgfgs[hgjiiowo5qw-itjwww50hwwohiw-h kduifyavhks]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.200.185.159 (talk) 15:35, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Yuu Watase . Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 13:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Epotoransu! Mai

[edit]
Epotoransu! Mai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnotable manga series. Fails WP:BK and WP:N. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources in any language. Lack of licensing outside of Japan makes it even more unlikely any could be found, and it was a very short lived series. Prod removed by User:Dream Focus with note of "It was translated into French, so yes, it was released outside of Japan. 33,000 Google hits means some notable sources are probably out there" but no evidence was provided for French translation and this is unconfirmed by Anime News Network. Obviously Google hits are not an indication of notability at all - scanslations and fansites are not notability considerations. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:06, 25 September 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. — Jake Wartenberg 02:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reginald Wilson (murderer)

[edit]
Reginald Wilson (murderer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 02:05, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This actually doesn't seem to be a WP:BLP1E case. A Google search for "Reginald Wilson" + "David Birkett" [91] comes up with this article [92] in the Independent from 1999, when Wilson was said to be one of the three most dangerous prisoners in the UK so that special arrangements were being made for him and the other two. That's connected with the original crime but it also relies on an evaluation of him that doesn't just stem from the original murder (because it also takes into account his subsequent actions and how his keepers evaluate his then-present danger). So we have someone notable for more than one thing: murdering and then being more dangerous than your usual murder convict. As a source in the article shows, in 2008 it was reported that government officials disagreed over his ability to ever be parolled. Given all this, it shouldn't surprise anyone if he's in the news again sometime in the next five or 10 years (or 20 or 30). As BLP1E states: The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources. JohnWBarber (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeletePer WP:BLP1E not an indiscriminate collection of information, and not a directory of prison inmates. Killed a man by knocking him in the head and got convicted and sentenced. Hyperbole where someone calls him "one of the three most dangerous prisoners" is not that impressive. (Maybe it says something about the mildness of the average prisoner in the jurisdiction). Lots of murders worldwide get life sentences, or even death sentences. Crystal ball gazing about what he might do in future years really doesn't enter into the deletion debate. Edison (talk) 17:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You say lots of murderers worldwide get life sentences, but only three in all of the UK were judged worth putting in a more secure confinement than the UK's most secure prison. Here are the key parts of the 1999 article I linked to. This can't be crammed into WP:BLP1E or "Crystal ball gazing": Brodie Clark, the new director of high security prisons at the Prison Service, has decided the three continue to pose an extreme risk and must be moved for the sake of staff and other inmates. [...] Wilson, 34, has been a disruptive inmate, trying to escape from Frankland prison, Co Durham, after cutting through the bars of his cell. He gave himself up after realising a ladder made from old furniture was too heavy. The 1999 article appeared about 9 years after the murder. One event? JohnWBarber (talk) 19:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of prisoners with life sentences escape or attempt to escape. Nothing novel in this. And in the US, there are thousands of life sentence prisoners and over 100 who were juvenile offenders, with no parole eligibility. Another run of the mill killer. Edison (talk) 19:52, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 18:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and move. Normally I'd make this a WP:NOTNEWS. However, I remember this was, at the time, a major news story in the area, and became the subject of a whole Crimewatch Review programme. Since then, the story has resurfaced in 1999 (as mentioned above) and again in 2008 on BBC News and two national papers, which I'd say scrapes it. Bear in mind, however, then even the most notorious murderers tend to appear in an article about their crime rather than an article about themselves (for instance, Ian Huntley). As such, I'd recommend renaming this to something like Hammer murder or Murder of David Birkett. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 08:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BLP1E is not a reason for deletion. The policy only concerns the name of an article. As pointed out above, this individual is still getting coverage 18 years after his conviction due his rare whole life tariff. Keep and expand. Nolamgm (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While I beleive Wikipedia should definately have articles on crimes/criminals that recieve signficant news coverage over an extended period, this one does not seem to qualify. The only source listed by the article is a newspaper article that isn't even primarily about this crime, but rather a list of criminals who had recieved "whole life tarrifs" with a brief blurb on each. A Google search for '"Reginald Wilson" murder' only turned up a couple of brief news articles. It is possible that some serious effort might turn up some sources that would establish notability but right now I know of none, so delete it is. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try Googling murder + "david birkett" (the victim) and you get 1,000+ entries with articles from 2008 from what looks like every major news outlet in Britain. [93] News accounts from 1990 are going to be scarce on the web, no matter what the subject, but it's likely that the original murder was covered nationwide as well. This is significant coverage over an extended period on different topics for the same subject. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, after looking again maybe there are some good sources like: [94], but if you want to cut this debate off (and avoid ending right back at another AfD debate) you need to expand the article and cite some of these sources. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I don't have time to spend on it. I've made the case, properly, that the subject meets our WP:BLP1E criteria. In fact, the idea of deleting on WP:BLP1E grounds simply goes against the facts that he's noted for multiple events. A closing admin adhering to policy would opt to keep, one adhering to consensus will delete, which I expect. Frankly, I also don't have enough interest in the subject to spend more time on it. When someone does, they'll recreate it. Wikipedia's loss, but life is short. JohnWBarber (talk) 02:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom, not notorious enough, the only reference is a short article with another murderer followed by a long list of other murderers, and the subject is a part of it. New seeker (talk) 09:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. GiantSnowman 14:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Not for encyclopedia, but maybe for special interest sites. Tfz 15:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless there's a lot more to be said than is present in the article; I agree with Rusty Cashman in their analysis. DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Caitlin Crosby. Closing as "merge" on the suggestion of the only !voter. Consider this a no consensus close. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Have My Heart

[edit]
Still Have My Heart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable song. Fails WP:NSONGS. SummerPhD (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:22, 25 September 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. I am not taking into account Roy jyotirmoy's contribution, since it does not address a matter relevant to the inclusion of an article under applicable Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  Sandstein  17:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GEOSCAN

[edit]
GEOSCAN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

On-belt elemental analysis is of dubious notability. One specific system for doing this analysis is certainly not notable. Also spam aspects. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Spam without significant coverage in multiple independent reliable resources. At date of this comment 1 and 4 (of 4) are not independent (1=United States Patent Application 4=company promotion) and 3 is a site "where tens of millions of people each month publish and discover original writings and documents". Duffbeerforme (talk) 12:50, 29 September 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

International Ombudsman Association

[edit]
International Ombudsman Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod, lacks coverage in 3rd party sources. Members have been referenced in other contexts but I'm not finding the kind of focused articles on the organization that notability guidelines require. RadioFan (talk) 18:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Love in a Lift

[edit]
Love in a Lift (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Today's "upcoming album" article. This actually has a title, so it escapes the HAMMER, but no track-list, release date or source; fails WP:NALBUMS, which requires a release date "in the near future" confirmed by reliable sources, and WP:CRYSTAL. JohnCD (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Kekkonen

[edit]
Maria Kekkonen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't appear to pass WP:PORNBIO. TheoloJ (talk) 16:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Keep Just added multiple mainstream Finnish news sources with feature articles about Kekkonen introducing pole-dancing to Finland as fitness and dance. There are other refs as well - she seems to be very "notable" in Finland and that should be good enough for us! Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:07, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems obvious: Notable contribution (introducing pole-dancing to Finland), and sources (in Finnish, of course-- it's a Finnish subject). Thanks to Cherryblossom for finding those sources. Dekkappai (talk) 14:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 25 September 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 with leave to speedy renominate. Listed for 14 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator but not enough participation to determine consensus. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Awaien Show

[edit]
The Awaien Show (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Does not meet notability guidelines, lacks references to 3rd party sources. I'm not finding any hits in Google news. RadioFan (talk) 15:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kubatko

[edit]
Kubatko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails WP:MUSICBIO, and a possible WP:COI. Click23 (talk) 14:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 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. # 09:25, 25 September 2009 Backslash Forwardslash (talk | contribs) deleted "NetMovers" ‎ (G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:35, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NetMovers

[edit]
NetMovers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Third-party contested speedy. Although the two references included could be the basis of a valid article (but that probably wouldn't be enough), the current one is pure spam. Speedy delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • The intention of the article is not to be spam - it describes the business model the company formed and how they used the internet to alter the way property is now bought and sold. This shift in model should be noted for informational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.122.174.252 (talk • contribs) 2009-09-18 15:01:35
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh please why was this relisted? This is just plain spam. The comment from the IP just screams out "Please, please, I wrote this to further my commercial interests because I told the venture capitalists my advertising plan was grassroots so I spammed Wikipedia describing my 'bold new business process methodology'" Make this go away. Miami33139 (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete as spam (g11) - so tagged. One, the article does nothing more than advertise the website. Two, it's by admission of the above IP. Open shut case, in my opinion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Yes the article is "borderline spam" and was obviously created by someone with a coi but I still felt that we needed at least one other editor to endorse the nomination and that's why I relisted it. Furthermore, the two sources listed in the article (one looks like an independent non-trivial mention, the other I'm not sure about) suggests that it may be possible to write a neutral article on this subject. However, I agree that this isn't that article. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:19, 25 September 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) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devamrita Swami

[edit]
Devamrita Swami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable Iskcon swami. Authorship of a book is not a sufficient grounds for inclusion. Wikidas© 10:22, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think this one deserves a keep. Devamrita Swami has received significant coverage in this documentary and some coverage in the US media in the 1980s (in New York Times for example), when he was the president of New Vrindavan Hare Krishna community. Also he's one of the few senior leaders in the Hare Krishna movement, where he is a sannyasi, a diksa guru and a member of the Governing Body Commission.--Gaura79 (talk) 06:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absence of WP:RS to support any claims on notability under WP:V. Appears to be a self promotional article. Wikidas© 20:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gl-117

[edit]
Gl-117 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game has not received significant coverage from reliable, third-party sources, so does not meet the guideline for notability. I am aware of its presence on happypenguin.org, sourceforge, etc, but these entries do not qualify for WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 09:36, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celemony

[edit]
Celemony (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DELETE. This software company is not evidently notable. JBsupreme (talk) 09:10, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lists one independent RS (Macworld) and that is almost verbatim copy of a press release. Miami33139 (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Melodyne is together with Auto-Tune market-leading audio-software tools for pitch-correction (much used and much debated). The article may however need upgrading. Gsoler (talk) 11:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've actually heard a good bit about Melodyne recently from friends and the net. I'm not very informed about it, which is why I looked it up- and saw this tag. I think it's fair to say it's a pretty prevalent topic right now. There were literally hundreds of people referring to it in the comments on blogs I looked at, usually in connection with Auto-Tune. From what I've gathered, the poster above me seems to be correct in that it's one of a couple of leading programs used to fix pitch in singers' voices for a more professional sound. The article seems to have issues with sourcing and may have been written by someone within Celemony, but it warrants fixing, not deletion. Here's an idea- change the article name to "Melodyne", similar to Auto-Tune's page.--Thecitrusking (talk) 00:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC) — Thecitrusking (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sana-Software

[edit]
Sana-Software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested PROD. Notability not established, possible COI editor. Article creator (User:SanaSoftware, definitely a COI, already indef-blocked for username vio) may be the same user as User:Brambo123, who started editing when the creator was blocked. [flaminglawyer] 00:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:49, 25 September 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. Verifiability seems to be no longer contested, and we have no consensus as to notability, so default to keep.  Sandstein  17:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eunice Sanborn

[edit]
Eunice Sanborn (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable person. Only reference is an unreliable blog. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 16:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep.. It's clear that the article is under construction. She is verified to be the world's 10th-oldest person here:

http://www.grg.org/Adams/E.HTM

adding that as a source might be COI, but others could find it. Note the claimed age is born in 1895, but the 1896 record comes from census data.Ryoung122 21:33, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per Ryoung122. 74.249.149.228 (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.dailytexanonline.com/state-local/at-114-one-of-texas-supercentenarians-dies-1.949307 There is a source. 65.81.247.9 (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Strong delete Would you vote to keep it once she's died? There is nothing notable about her whatsoever beyond thus far having remained alive. The article, if kept, will forever be a stub as there is nothing notable whatsoever about her beyond her age. The moment she passes, her notability passes with her. Nothing against the woman herself, but I can't see how she comes anywhere close to meriting a separate article. Simply a mention on the 10-oldest link should be more than sufficient.  B.Rossow talkcontr 16:35, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
dude, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NOTE#Notability_is_not_temporary --Longevitydude (talk) 19:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I have read that. I don't think she's notable now, nor is it likely that she will do anything notable before she dies. Simply being one of the billions of non-dead people on the planet isn't, IMHO, notable. -- B.Rossow talkcontr 13:48, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The guidelines are fairly implicit and her longevity is noteworthy and if she keeps living and those ahead of her on the list keep dying, she can end up higher in the ranks and garner further notability. Besides the fact that this isn't a paper encyclopedia and that the guidelines seem to indicate that she classifies as being noteworthy, I've found a few more sources for her [102][103] if it helps KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Redirect to Oldest people where she is already on the list of "Ten oldest people" and can remain on the list of "Oldest people since 1955" after she goes to her reward. Fails WP:BLP1E, where the event is "staying alive." The well-documented very oldest people are collectively encyclopedic, expressing examples of the extremes within the human species, but if all they are known for is being alive for a long time, they do not need individual directory-type articles, since Wikipedia is not a directory. Her biography is apparently, other than the continued living, no different than if she had passed at age 90. Edison (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong to say her biography would be the same if she died at 90, if she died at 90 she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be Texas' oldest person. 74.249.149.87 (talk) 21:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that part, and if she didn't continue living she wouldn't be in the top ten and she wouldn't be the oldest person in Texas.67.33.119.28 (talk) 21:36, 26 September 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 speedily deleted, obvious advertising and unreadable gibberish. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Plasticity

[edit]
Digital Plasticity (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay with no reputable sources. The article claims that a book on the topic is being written, but that doesn't establish notability. Looie496 (talk) 00:43, 25 September 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. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clea Rose

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Clea Rose (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local notability, only covered in one local newspaper over a period of about 8 months. Fails WP:NOTNEWS. Lara 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Good coverage, and it seems to have stirred even parliamentary debate, which raises the notability enough to be over sea level. I think that the depth of article coverage is a bit exaggerated (a shorter article would be enough), but AfD is not cleanup. --Cyclopia (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep- it was Clea Rose case at some point, not sure why it still isn't. Any rate, cover the event, not the person, and the event seems to have plenty of lasting notabilityUmbralcorax (talk) 01:59, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep--what Umbralcorax said. JohnWBarber (talk) 04:44, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep with move to Clea Rose case. The press in Australia maintained a keen interest in the case, in which a minor driving a stolen car hit and killed Rose, after being pursued at high speed by police. Police security camera footage of the area disappeared or the cameras malfunctioned. There was parliamentary hue and cry, and an eventual inquest, although oddly there is no press coverage online of the inquest finding,s despite steady coverage of the inquest from May to December 2007. There is continuing coverage of subsequent violations by the then-minor driver. The "keep" is weak because I see no evidence of changes in the high-speed pursuit policies for "suspicious cars," despite the widespread criticism. Articles about crime victims or accident victims should be titled to reflect they are not memorial articles about the previously non-notable person. This is consistent with WP:NOTMEMORIAL and other crime/accident stories about someone who was just in the wrong place at the wrong time. The first editor who moved it back to Clea Rose said it was not a "case" it was a "death." In fact it was a case. Edison (talk) 18:23, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 02:12, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May DaCamara

[edit]
May DaCamara (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This person is non-notable and does not meet WP:ARTIST as no reliable sources have been produced or can be found for this person to support the article apart from one self promotional website or un-official websites that are likely to be circular and self published. As a check, no Google News, no Google Books and no Google Scholar articles exist for this person. Wikipedia is not a resource to reprint self promotional literature as if it were encyclopaedic or notable. Ash (talk) 09:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep or Merge. The subject may be notable for her association with a historically significant religious movement in the US. Not really self-promotional, since the subject has been dead for 33 years. The article is neutral in tone and decently written. It does not appear to be a type of WP:SPAM--the artist and her religious movement were most active in the 30s & 40s. While the article lack sources, but perhaps this can be remedied. More sources are listed at "I AM" Activity. One should also consider contacting the article's prime author directly to enquire. --Whoosit (talk) 07:45, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(note) As part of the normal AFD process the originator is notified and invited to comment in this discussion (see User talk:Sburke) so this has been taken care of.—Ash (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
→Important to point out the related debate on her collaborator Charles Sindelar, above. This has generated quite some discussion. I feel AfD for these two should be discussed and decided upon together, as the contention--artistic or other notability--is essentially the same. --Whoosit (talk) 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:32, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • Keep - the point is, this is a very influencial painter who created the famous "I AM" Presence painting and relate paintings, which has been adapted through many theosophical and newage subgroups; hardly anyone knows who painted those, and I actually started to attribute her work in my online activities. It's a shame there is no page where people can find the page on her and unable to EXTEND it and provide more information about her. By removing the page the risk that her work (quite known) isn't credited properly - because hardly any information can be found on her. A kind of chicken/egg problem - but at least at Wikipedia anyone can add information and bootstrap useful information. So - please put it back and wait for 6 months and see what happens. There are mindless TV episodes featured on Wikipedia but an influencial but fairely unknown artist can't have a page at Wikipedia? -- 20 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.4.84.164 (talk) 16:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tita Datu Puangco

[edit]
Tita Datu Puangco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

fails WP:BIO , blatant self promotional piece with the only reference being a self published source. hardly anything in gnews [104]. LibStar (talk) 00:08, 25 September 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.
  1. ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/znc/files/, click 0.074 near the bottom
  2. ^ http://sourceforge.net/projects/psybnc/files/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_25&oldid=1142642972"