Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 November 15

< 14 November	16 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Closed early as keep, per the addition of reliable sources. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Lee (activist)

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

This page, as well as another variant Richard Lee (advocate) has been deleted a number of times for lack of notability, most recently by me. After User:Yonskii left a note at my talk page, I dug a little deeper, and decided that this article does not warrant speedy delete afterall, but that it does merit nomination for an AfD discussion. Both this article, and the related Oaksterdam University, which I have been editing this evening to clean it up, smack of advertising, and are rather misleading in nature. Hiberniantears (talk) 00:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I was all for deletion when I first saw the article - it cited no source but the so-called "university". But then I did a little research and found plenty of citations for Richard Lee. He has been mentioned in the New York Times (more than once) and on Voice of America news. His "university" has generated a ton of publicity in reliable sources including Newsweek, Business Week, and Fortune. The only problem with this article was that his notability was not properly sourced. I have now added sources, so please take another look. --MelanieN (talk) 04:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Keep: There also appear to be other reliable sources besides the ones already cited by MelanieN, such as here, here, here and here. I found those after only a brief search, so I'm sure there are plenty more out there that can be found with just a small effort... — Hunter Kahn _(c) 07:07, 16 November 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. WP:SNOW. Clearly there will be no consensus to delete this article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 21:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Central Credit Union

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

contested prod, no claim of notability, no references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The discussion of the credit union's size is a clear claim of notability, and this search shows a great many news articles about the credit union. -- Eastmain (talk) 23:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but improve per Eastmain. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - ample reliable sources discussing the subject. Lack of information in the article is article is grounds for improvement, not deletion - Peripitus (Talk) 02:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Ditto Peripitus. Gobonobo ^T ^C 08:21, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Somehow the element of deletion policy stating "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist" slipped past the nom. This is a plainly notable and verifiable institution, as a 5-second Google News search turned up. Ravenswing 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep per above.--Milowent (talk) 00:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Why in the world do people reflexively delete perfectly acceptable articles? Bachcell (talk) 03:38, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Keep - this nomination is an example of where WP:BEFORE might have assisted the nominator. Crafty (talk) 00:43, 18 November 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. JForget 00:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America First Credit Union

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

contested prod, no claim of notability, no references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The editor who removed the prod wrote: "A Google news archive search seems to indicate notability." I would agree. A good AfD nomination of a contested prod will take into account the comments of the editor who removed the prod. – Eastmain (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: America First Credit Union is a very large financial organization, with 500,000 members and 4.8 billion in assets. I can't see why this would be nominated for deletion. Gobonobo ^T ^C 06:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep: Because the element of deletion policy stating "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, try to confirm that such sources don't exist" somehow slipped past the nom. This is a plainly notable and verifiable institution, as a 5-second Google News search turned up. Ravenswing 16:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Keep and Add To: America First Credit Union is an incredible organization. My only complaint about this article is that it leaves out Davis, Weber, and Utah Counties (AFCU is very strong in these counties as well as Salt Lake, though it is somewhat overshadowed by UCCU in Utah County). User:Orgelmusik 22:08, 16 November 2009
Keep: Article does make notability claim in my opinion, as it claims to be among largest credit unions in the united states. also, lack of references to 3rd party sources is not a valid basis for nominating, as long as possible references do exist.--Milowent (talk) 00:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: America First is absolutely notable. A half million members alone seems to assert that. GreenGlass^(talk) 02:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - almost half a million members, combined with what appears to be some reliable sources, including news agencies, would seem to make this notable enough to qualify for inclusion. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a consumer business with a major general-public presence, and as such it is easily confirmable by coverage in reliable sources. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above. JBsupreme (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Largest Credit Union in Utah, I don't see how it doesn't pass WP:N. Tavatar (talk) 17:28, 21 November 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. JForget 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JSquiggle

(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) 23:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BURDEN and by the description this is not going to be useful. Miami33139 (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete simply isn't notabile Alan - talk 05:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to its other problems, the description as a a peer-to-peer "scribble program" gives no context as to what this is supposed to do, and I have no idea. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert its notability or provide enough reliable 3rd party sources. Google doesn't turn up much in the way of WP:RS either. Cocytus [»talk«] 02:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
JBdelete. There isn't any indicator of notability for this software. JBsupreme (talk) 18:13, 19 November 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 List of countries by external debt. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Debt per capita

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

This list is simply reproduced from a single source, [1]. Not of any real encyclopaedic value. Speedy tag removed by User:ArnoldReinhold Jezhotwells (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MergeThere must be an article on here somwhere that this information can be included into, however, it should be done in a non-copied way Alan - talk 05:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ "Not of any real encylopaedic value". I'd have to disagree, but economics isn't of interest to everyone. This is a logical counterpart to per-capita income, although I'd like to see the table expanded to show the latest figures on debt and the population, so the figures can be seen. Certainly, it overcomes the original synthesis objections by having at least one source. The one source objection seems to be more like a case of a "damned if you do or don't" problem. Mandsford (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or Merge ~~if a suitable target presents itself~~ or redirect to List of countries by external debt, but don't delete. Encyclopedic value is obvious. --Lambiam 21:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC) (Revised 13:03, 19 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment. The information in the table is already presented in better context as a column in a sortable table in List of countries by external debt. There is certainly scope for an encyclopedia article about the concept of debt per capita, as can be seen from a quick scan of Google Books search results for "debt per capita" and "per capita debt", but as it stands this article is only a dictionary definition and a table of information that we have elsewhere. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any relevant information (although they both sources draw from the CIA World Factbook, so untelling whether there is anything additional). Good catch on that. As Lambiam says, encyclopedic value is obvious. Mandsford (talk) 18:57, 17 November 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. JForget 00:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

America's Credit Union Museum

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

contested prod. No indication of how this subject is notable. lacks references to 3rd party sources RadioFan (talk) 23:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third party sources are not lacking: [2]. The article can easily be upgraded. Warrah (talk) 23:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment but how is worthy of being noted? The google news search above has some hits but they are to press releases from the museum itself or to a industry journal who's connection to the museum is not clear. This coverage is largely simple mentions of the existence of the museum and not the kind of significant coverage that WP:GNG requires. The article has been tagged for over 2.5 years with reference concerns without improvement.--RadioFan (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Site used for campaign appearances [3] shows one example. [4] shows international interest in it, and the fact that the first American credit union was established by French Americans. Notable thus on two grounds. For which [5] [6] and a multitude of others are on point. Collect (talk) 23:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't read French well enough but it seems from 1st result the building itself may be notable in addition to the news references about the museum referenced above. Personal thoughts on being "worthy" have no bearing in notability guidelines. StarM 01:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Definitely notable for the historic significance of the building. The article could use a little fleshing out, but shouldn't be deleted. Gobonobo ^T ^C 08:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The museum is listed as "Building at 418-420 Notre Dame Ave." in the National Register of Historic Places. All NRHP sites are considered notable. --Ken Gallager (talk) 14:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — to expand more on what Ken says, its National Register nomination form (while not online, it's a valid print source) will list multiple reliable sources that cover the building. A property without strong sources can't be documented enough to be able to be listed on the Register. Nyttend (talk) 00:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable per availability of third-party sources and listing on the National Register. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - building seems to meet notability guidelines, meets WP:BUILDING (even though that wasn't ratified). Cocytus [»talk«] 02:27, 18 November 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 -- Y not? 00:00, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grietje Jansen-Anker

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

Just being really old does not equal notablilty. A minor obituary is insignificant and does not pass WP:BIO. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lacks notability for it's own article, but possibly merge into other articles of simular subject? Alan - talk 05:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Netherlands has over 16 million persons. Ms. Jansen-Anker was the oldest Dutch person for more than a year.Ryoung122 12:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Grietje Jansen-Anker is quite notable. She was not merely really old; 112-year-olds are literally rarer than one in a million. (Consider: of around 7 billion people on Earth, only a hundred or so are 110 years old. 112-year-olds are considerably rarer still.) Mrs. Jansen-Anker was also the very last living Dutch person born in the 19th century.

Her obituary is not minor, as it was carried by many sources in the Netherlands; I also counted 38 news items about her since 2006, when she turned 110. Several international sources, including some in English, also exist. She attracted attention while still alive, both for being over 110 and for being the oldest person in the Netherlands. Naturally, the Gerontology Research Group also included her in its reports for several years.

As for WP:BIO, note qualification #2 of the "Any biography" section: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field." As a superstar of aging, how does she not qualify?

All that said, the article could be merged into articles on the oldest people in 2008 (2009, 2007, etc.), oldest people in the Netherlands, etc. However, that may result in duplication of information in several articles. It seems easier to link to a single article for each person. Zomno (talk) 12:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. 'Notability is not temporary' - she's generated a few fleeting news reports, not enough for her own article. Jnthn0898 (talk) 12:56, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, she's generated quite a few news reports, but they definitely are not "fleeting". See the sources provided in my comment below. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Grietje Jansen-Anker passes WP:BIO. Grietje Jansen-Anker is the subject of this article from Provinciale Zeeuwse Courant (March 23, 2006), this article from Reformatorisch Dagblad (September 11, 2008), this article from Nederlandse Omroep Stichting (October 15, 2009), and this article from de Volkskrant (October 15, 2009). Notability is fully established. Cunard (talk) 00:31, 22 November 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. JForget 00:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skullduggery (Fife & Drum Corps)

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

Unreferenced article about a band without any proof of notability. Stroppolo (talk) 21:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Made up in school one day, AFAICT. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article appears to be made up nonsense Alan - talk 05:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete G3? There's also an apparent WP:AUTOBIO problem Special:Contributions/Drumcorps272. Nice logo, though (though the spelling doesn't match the article!).Шизомби (talk) 16:52, 16 November 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. JForget 00:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitehall Guard Fife & Drum Corps

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

Unreferenced article about a band without any proof of notability. Stroppolo (talk) 21:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local parade band with no claim of notability. -- Mikeblas (talk) 22:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is pretty much a duplicate article of another nominated for deletion Alan - talk 05:15, 16 November 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. JForget 00:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order Up- short film

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

Non-notable film. Appears to fail WP:NOTFILM. ttonyb (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 22:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, zero notability, very little ocntext, very little inline links. Alan - talk 05:17, 16 November 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. Merging options can be further discussed on the discussion page. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PAST FUTURE (Namie Amuro album)

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

Delete per WP:NALBUMS. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 23:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article. Can be replaced if album becomes notable later on. Definatly WP:crystal Alan - talk 05:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Alan. Edward321 (talk) 01:29, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have significantly rewritten the article, enough so that I do believe that the article can stand on its own. NATEamx (talk) 08:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Significant coverage from a significant Japanese artist about a significant album, it being her first in more than two years. I do think this passes WP:NALBUMS. Eugeniu B msg 15:40, 22 November 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 speedied. DMacks (talk) 22:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BananaSphere, Inc

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

Company with no evidence of notability. Speedy (db-corp) contested by IP (not overtly the article creator) without actually solving the "no asserted notability" problem, so we're here by process. Article creator hang-on'ed with "Starting this wikipedia article to add more information about BananaSphere in an informational way to users who wonder what the site is due to its pre-release stage (many users will go to Wikipedia to find information)." which sounds exactly like what what WP isn't: a directory entry or free hosting site for not-yet-notable entity. DMacks (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. Unlike PROD, removing the tag doesn't automatically send the article to AfD. There's still no assertion of notability, so I've restored the tag. Tevildo (talk) 21:34, 15 November 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 non admin closure TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grzegorz Michalski

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

I don't think this article meets the criteria at WP:PROF. Michalski is an Assistant Professor in corporate finance at Wroclaw University. I can't find any coverage of him - there's an ambassador to Turkey of the same name - and if Google Scholar is correct his work is yet to be cited. Fences&Windows 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Scholars at the Assistant Professor stage of their careers are rarely notable and this one does not appear to be an exception. Very little of relevance in GoogleScholar[7]. GoogleBooks does have a bunch of hits but they all appear to be false positives. Does not pass WP:PROF for now. Kinoq (talk) 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as copyvio from [8]. Not enough evidence of notability per WP:PROF anyway. CronopioFlotante (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment applied Speedy Template. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:33, 15 November 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. JForget 00:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Venue networking

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

This concept is a promotional tool of ScreenScape Networks. They have blogged about the creation of the article here. I can find no uses of the term independently from ScreenScape, and no significant coverage of the concept in independent reliable sources. Fences&Windows 20:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 20:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. —Fences&Windows 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article appears to be self-promotion/Advertising. nothing notabile or encyclopedic at all. Alan - talk 05:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self-serving advertisement. Angryapathy (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Blatant spam. The Google News results linked at the top of the article are all either press releases from ScreenScape (who don't seem to realise that CamelCase has been a subject of ridicule for several years now, so seem to be just as incompetent in their marketing as the Wikimedia Foundation) or accidental juxtapositions of these two words. This would probably qualify for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G11. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:27, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, coatrack spam, and the sort of thing no reasonable person should be expected to make sense of. The words just keep chasing their tails: ...a general concept in marketing based on the idea that different venues share similar audiences. Members of the network can benefit by sharing access to their respective audiences via shared media content displayed on digital screens. Venue Network members participate by creating, sharing and publicly displaying content transmitted over the Internet. The shared content is displayed on digital screens located in venues in order to entertain, inform, self-promote, cross-promote, and advertise to specific venue audiences. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete, Although the concept of venue networking is new, and ScreenScape is the ONLY player currently in the marketplace, the article does not mention ScreenScape except for in the references section. To be fair, how many companies from Silicon Valley have coined new terms in reference to their products or brand without incurring scrutiny from Wiki-conservatives? This is an example of digital bullying.User:Mbdmerritt\Morgan Merritt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbdmerritt (talk • contribs) 18:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I note that your user name has a strong resemblance to the name of the marketing coordinator of ScreenScape. Please think about the damage to your reputation, and future employability, that can be done by your actions here. Do you want to gain a reputation for being a blatant, inept, spammer? This discussion may well become one of the first search engine results found for your name for the rest of your life. I certainly wouldn't want to employ anyone who can't tell the difference between defence against spam and bullying. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:26, 20 November 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. The primary claim to notability (the number of movie screens present) was rebutted, but I can't say consensus to delete formed in this discussion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 11:41, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lakehurst Cinemas

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

Apparently non-notable movie theater. Only third-party reliable source appears to be about the building that went up after the subject was demolished. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP -- GCC Lakehurst was a record holder in 1987 for most movie screens in a theatre. Will fire up the scanner if I need to; I'm staring at the News Sun article published in January 2007 after the place closed.--jonrev (talk) 20:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SOURCE: Read it and weep...--jonrev (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to weep yet (though I do have a box of Kleenex handy). Read what I posted further down the page ;) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another, and yet another source with information on the theatre.--jonrev (talk) 01:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And one is user submitted and the other is a self published source. Read WP:RS. It helps illustrate what is reliable and what isn't. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[9][10][11] (go to the very bottom) [12][13][14]--jonrev (talk) 01:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless someone finds something after firing up the scanner. Not that the article mentions it, but I find it hard to believe that 12 screens in a multiplex was a world record in 1987. Mandsford (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is the kind of fascinating trivia question I love wikipedia for. The article on Toronto Eaton Centre says that in 1979, its Cineplex was "the largest in the world with 18 screens." The Multiplex (movie theater) entry (an article which really could use a nice history section, or coordinated with Movie_theater#Multiplexes_and_megaplexes) fudges and says the Toronto location was king "for several years." So Mansford is right that's Lakehurst never held a world record. But, in the U.S., the 2005 Lake County News-Sun article cited by jonrev says Lakehurst was "once touted as having the most movie screens under one roof in the U.S." Also, this 2003 Sun-News article says in part "But Fogelson pointed out, with accuracy, that Lakehurst Cinema was once the largest multiplex in the nation." A 1996 NPR piece (pay access link) says the first "multiplex" opened in 1963 (two screens), and puts the world's largest at that time (1996) at 25. But, alas, there is evidence that other 12 screen multiplexes existed by 1987, such as a 1985 Newsday piece that references two such 12-screen theaters already in existence in New York, one of which appears it may have opened in 1979. I suspect the Lakehurst Cinema had some convoluted claim in 1987 that it was the "largest" something or other, though. It does seems to have enough press to make it worth keeping.--Milowent (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Neutral per the lots of sources above. ~~even if it was a world record, we would need multiple reliable sources to back it up, which only one seems to exist. Even then it would be borderline notable.~~ TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough. There are thousands of movie theaters that have won awards and/or been demolished, and they dont have articles. Alan - talk 05:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth:

The theatre was the first 12-screen (stated in several sources), and was controversial for management first showing, then pulling several films; particularly New Jack City, as the result of a large gang brawl in the cinema's parking lot in 1991 (parts of Waukegan are notable for being high-crime areas; Lakehurst Mall's area was one during its final decade). This is mentioned in numerous sources. It is also one of the four that canceled showings of Boyz N the Hood after gang-related violence. While it might not be interesting or notable to someone in California for example, the theatre is notable for fans of the film, and for people of the Chicagoland area. The theatre was also extremely popular among soldiers stationed at Naval Station Great Lakes due to its proximity to the base. I will expand the article tonight with the above-posted sources.--jonrev (talk) 08:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have done some work on the article, if further improvements are needed please feel free to help out. --jonrev (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lakehurst Cinemas passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines because it is covered in multiple independent reliable sources.
To SchuminWeb (talk · contribs): There are multiple reliable sources about this company. This article from Lake County News-Sun was published on December 17, 2003, four years before Lakehurst Cinemas was demolished.
To Joe Chill (talk · contribs): The article cites many reliable sources about this movie theater. In addition to the Lake County News-Sun article mentioned above, there are more sources, such as this, this, and this.
To Alankc (talk · contribs): notability is determined by whether or not the subject has reliable sources. Your "not notable enough" argument falls afoul of Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#What about article x? Cunard (talk) 01:15, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While ordinarily the coverage the theater received would satisfy the GNG, I believe the evidence brought forward in this debate shows that the "most screens" claim was clearly incorrect, that the news sources involved failed to fact-check the articles but instead relied on promotional claims that turned out to be inaccurate, and that notability therefor fails because the particular sources cited end up failing WP:RS. This is an unusual case, and a certain amount of IAR underlies my !vote. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 01:13, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sufficient independent coverage by reliable sources. Racepacket (talk) 09:52, 23 November 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. Well rescued by Milowent. JohnCD (talk) 19:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Belvidere Discount Mall

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

Apparently non-notable mall, as there are no non-trivial sources cited, and a Google search for non-trivial reliable sources came up dry. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE RE PRIOR AFD Added Nov 16: This article was previously nominated for deletion in December 2007 and KEPT: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belvidere Mall --Milowent (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lake County's first enclosed shopping mall; official website is [15].--jonrev (talk) 23:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Here is one [16]. Not sure about if it is reliable or verifiable however. (Appears borderline) TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't believe it qualifies, since Labelscar is a self-published source. SchuminWeb (Talk) 01:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that is the case, I !vote delete. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Malls-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree with jonrev. Being "opened in 1965 as the first and only enclosed mall in Lake County" does qualify as Notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is that sarcasm? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 02:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. It was an application of common sense. AFD is not to judge if the current article is good enough... but if the topic is actually notable. Being the first at something is notable. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 02:40, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe notability is established. per jonrev.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:13, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Delete~~ I don't see anything here that establishes notability. The two websites mentioned so far are a self published blog, and a commercial promotional site. There don't seem to be any references at all in books, and the news search just turns up a few widely spaced articles that mention the mall in passing but are not about it. In short there is nothing that comes close to meeting the "has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources" requirement in WP:COMPANY.Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out my delete vote becasue the arguments no longer apply in light of the new sources found. Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Mall of America is notable. A small town shopping mall is not. There is no real historical significance to this mall, unlike certain others such as Roosevelt Field in NY which was an airport Charles Lindeburgh took off from on his famous flights. It's just another shopping mall most people have never heard of and never will. Alan - talk 05:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments After Article Improved

Strong Keep: This article needed some loving care. I spent some time today researching this mall, revamping, and adding a number of references. The mall is notable for being the first enclosed shopping mall in the region (and was the primary mall from at least 1965-1971, making it notable), and then reinventing itself over time to survive - it now primarily serves a Hispanic population. It has also received significant press coverage. The references I added today include the Chicago Sun-Times, Lake County News-Sun, and lengthy pieces by online retail history sites deadmalls.com and labelscar.com. Google news archive tells me there are more articles focused on the mall on the pay archives for the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times which I don't have access too (I have a free highbeam account this month, but these sources aren't on there far enough back to access). Although this mall is smaller than a large regional mall which would be automatically notable under Wikipedia:MALL (essay, rejected guideline), I believe it has historic significance and sufficient non-trivial published works of credible and reliable secondary source material written about it for inclusion on Wikipedia.--Milowent (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rescue job. I think the news articles you found probably put it over the top a(though just barely)notablility wise. Therefore I am striking out my delete vote.Rusty Cashman (talk) 03:54, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It got mentioned in credible news sources. Dream Focus 20:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The rewrite by Milowent (talk · contribs) establishes that Belvidere Discount Mall passes WP:GNG. Nice job! Cunard (talk) 01:25, 22 November 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. JForget 00:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Coldplay tribute acts

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

Declined speedy - this is a list of mostly non-notable tribute bands. SchuminWeb (Talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Don't see that there are reliable sources to support notability of the individual bands, let alone justify this list. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge with Coldplay. However, the Coldplay article avoids lists, so I created this page for clarity. Any non-notable bands can be kept as redlinks. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. None of the bands are notable.--Michig (talk) 21:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None are notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If Coolplay passes AFD, add a oneliner in the Coldplay article about it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No notability for list entries or RS for this list as a known collection of items. DMacks (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a list of non-notable redlinks... can't this even be speedied as db-group? There's nothing going on here. Hairhorn (talk) 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with TheWeakWilled's view. Smartse (talk) 16:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see the one band passing AFD; however, if it did, I would not support its mention in the Coldplay article. Its presumptive notability is dependent on the real group, without adding anything substantive to the Coldplay article. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 22:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's a list of cover bands. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belete an article of redlinks is not helpful. Josh Parris 02:26, 19 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aja West and Cheeba

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

Non-notable music group; no recordings of note, notable members, or significant media coverage. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per criterion 8 of WP:BAND, they won an Independent Music Award.J04n(talk page) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:BAND #8: "Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis"—The Independant Music Awards are nowhere near the same neighborhood as those examples and is NOT a major music award. TheJazzDalek (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree but you are certainly entitled to your opinion. J04n(talk page) 22:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how an award created by a company who sells its products (The Musician’s Atlas + AtlasOnline) to the subjects of the awards (independant musicians) is somehow on the same level as various countries' national awards (Grammy/US, Juno/Canada, Mercury/UK, Choice/Ireland, Grammis/Sweden). But if that's your interpretation, that's your interpretation. TheJazzDalek (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. Reywas92 ^Talk 22:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per J04n. Joe Chill (talk) 22:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The music award counts as proof of notability. Dream Focus 03:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable. If anything, self-promotion/advertising Alan - talk 05:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This article has been nominated for rescue. J04n(talk page) 13:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - passes WP:BAND per winning a major award.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The Independent Music Awards have a lot of Google News, Books and Scholar hits. They might be less than legitimate, but I think the guideline means to avoid awards such as might be handed out by a local radio station or newspaper. For example, it would not be appropriate to claim notability for The Dudley Manlove Quartet because they won KING-TV's award for Best of Western Washington for the Cascade neighborhood. Abductive (reasoning) 06:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:15, 18 November 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. JForget 00:29, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Gaming, Virtual Worlds

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

Contested prod (I think). Author removed PROD tag, but removed most of the content at the same time. Even with the content, article has an unclear subject and appears to be a dictionary definition at best. TN X Man 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author of Enterprise Gaming, Virtual Worlds:

I am a graduate student in Computer Science at DePaul University and I'm creating this wiki page for a group project. The definition was copied and paste from the powerpoint used in class for our presentation, with the citation from Gartner. Please do not delete our page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackdigerati (talk • contribs) 19:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sorry, not notable, with elements of spam and original research thrown in. Hairhorn (talk) 04:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with above Alan - talk 05:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A college group project does not suffice as a reason to keep an article on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 19:32, 16 November 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. JForget 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Florio

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

The only reason this hasn't gotten speedy deleted is a claim that one song came in 2nd in a contest. I fail to see any notability here. Pigman☿/talk 18:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Article appears to be self-promotion, not notable at all. Alan - talk 05:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with Alan, looks like self-promotion and doesn't seem to satisfy notability requirements.--Staberinde (talk) 21:33, 16 November 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. JForget 00:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coolplay

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

Fails WP:BAND. Outside sources cited are only trivial mentions. SchuminWeb (Talk) 18:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:MUSIC. Some sources have been added, but there is no evidence of non-trivial coverage. snigbrook (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Perhaps [17] merits similar review. 99.149.84.135 (talk) 18:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 20:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the band has titular coverage a major national newspaper (as per citations), plus extensive mentions in other notable sources. They have apparently headlined Glastonbudget also.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Andrewjlockley (talk • contribs)
Delete. Playing at a cheap festival for tribute bands in a field in Leicestershire doesn't make them notable.--Michig (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a tribute band, they're notable. Your criticism seems to be equally applicable to all tribute bands. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tribute bands that receive multiple significant coverage in reliable sources are notable. Those that don't are not.--Michig (talk) 12:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please could you detail how the coverage cited fails the above test? There has been multiple instances in major sources. Andrewjlockley (talk) 09:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ref 1 is to their own website and therefore not independent, 2. says nothing about the band other than they're appearing, 3. (despite the title) also says nothing about the band, 4. is a reference to what exactly?, 5. is about the venue and simply mentions that the band are playing there, 6. again simply mentions that Coolplay are on the Glastonbudget bill, 7. is the same as 1. None of these constitute significant coverage of Coolplay. See WP:N for what constitutes significant coverage: ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". The sources cited contain only trivial mentions.--Michig (talk) 12:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no evidence of significant coverage from WP:RS, as outlined by User:Michig above. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. I went through the references individually, and came to the exact same conclusion as Michig, including a big WTF on reference 4. -- Whpq (talk) 21:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Belete, even if they've got an ex-European Cup hockey player in the lineup, that still don't cut WP:ENT Josh Parris 02:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as this does fail WP:BAND, still. JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There are enough eliable sources to establish notability criteria, however, all those sources don't have any significant information to warrant an article. Suede67 (talk) 17:05, 21 November 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. JForget 00:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bolivia's Best

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Bolivia's Best

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

Non-notable brand of coffee. A lot of hits on Yahoo and Google, but most of them aren't very good. Blueboy 96 18:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regretful delete I usually have little good to say about missionaries (of any faith), but these people seem to be trying to actually do some good. Unfortunately, they don't seem to have reached the level of notability Wikipedia looks for. Yet. Plenty of ghits, but blog-type, self-edited type or advert-type. Oh, and the iteams one, which doesn't count because it's the group the marketers of the coffee belong to. Produce some good reliable references, and change my mind... Peridon (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I have to agree with above. Perhaps if there were reliable cites and more extensive context, I would think differantly. Alan - talk 05:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 21:56, 18 November 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, per rougish interpretation of G11. Blueboy 96 18:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandeville Upper School Students

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

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; there is already an article Mandeville Upper School about the school. A list of the students is material for the school website, not for an encyclopedia. Contested PROD. JohnCD (talk) 17:56, 15 November 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) [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 17:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voseo

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

WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary- this is an article about a word, a spanish word
WP:Wikipedia is not a dictionary- This is an article about the way the word is used- the wikipedia is not a usage guide.(also WP:ISNOT)
WP:MOS wikipedia article names are English nouns. This isn't a noun, and it's not English.
The wikipedia WP:ISNOT a text book on the grammar of foreign languages

This is just a long dictionary article in the Wikipedia. It's well done, but being a well done dictionary article doesn't make it encyclopedic. Encyclopedic doesn't just mean long, it has connotations of generality, but this is just a single word. It hasn't done enough; it's done too much by being here at all. The wikipedia doesn't even do English verbs, never mind about foreign pronouns.

I call for Merge to pronoun. - Wolfkeeper 17:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, disruptive nomination. This is not an article about a word (not that it would matter if it were, since words are valid topics of encyclopedia articles), nor is it a textbook chapter for Spanish learners; this is an encyclopedia article about an aspect of the sociolinguistics of Spanish. Per WP:Speedy keep, this AFD need not run its course as it falls under the class of both "nominations which are made solely to provide a forum for disruption" and "nominations which are so erroneous that they indicate that the nominator has not even read the article in question". +An gr 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has a foreign word for a title though, and it inherently cannot be renamed in any sensible way to be anything else; are you saying that all words that are an 'aspect of sociolinguistics of Spanish' are valid articles? Isn't that potentially every word in Spanish? And wouldn't that argument apply to every other language as well? I don't see that this argument leads to any kind of wikipedia I would expect. I'm finding it rather easier to believe that this article is ineligible here, and that this is not a valid article topic.- Wolfkeeper 22:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kindergarten and Beijing have foreign words for their titles too; are you going to try to get them deleted on that account? When voseo is discussed in English, it is invariably called voseo.[18][19][20] +An gr 23:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

&Keep. This seems to be an expansion for Spanish of the concept at T-V distinction. It isn't an article about one word, but about an aspect of one of the world's most significant languages. Perhaps it needs more inward links from other Spanish-related articles. Sussexonian (talk) 00:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree with +An gr, this is an article about an aspect of Spanish linguistics not a dictionary entry, and articles about aspects of linguistics like Chinese classifier are perfectly acceptable. There is no danger of getting an article like this written about every Spanish word because not every word (or for that matter every minor linguistic point) has a usage history interesting enough to have reliable secondary sources like this one (in English no less) [21] or this [22] written about them, and thus would fail notability. Rusty Cashman (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Nomination seems a good-faithed but misguided attempt to remove a good article from Wikipedia on wikilawyering grounds.--Kotniski (talk) 07:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. In reply to Angr if this article is about "sociolinguistics of Spanish" then it should have a title like the "Sociolinguistics of Spanish". -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- He said an aspect of it. Anyway, having a less than ideal title is no reaon to delete something (and the reasons given in the nomination are just wrong - this isn't a dictionary entry).--Kotniski (talk) 13:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This article is not a definition of a word, it is about the differences in various forms of Spanish in the way the 2nd person pronoun is used. It is an article about a specific branch of Spanish linguistics, the naming is appropriate as there is no suitable English equivalent that would not be somewhat unwieldy. Jezhotwells (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the claims above, this article is indeed essentially a dictionary entry. (Note: I did not say "dictionary definition".) It includes a definition of the word, its history and usage patterns, and in general contains nothing that wouldn't be found in a theoretical ideal dictionary entry. It is not Wikipedia's place to duplicate the purpose of a dictionary. Powers ^T 14:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this article could be moved to Wiktionary? I rather doubt it, it's far more extensive, and isn't even about one specific word.--Kotniski (talk) 15:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that. Wiktionary's house style is surprisingly much more terse than some comprehensive print dictionaries. I apologize if I missed something in the article, but I didn't see any extensive discussion of any other words. Certainly the lede indicates that the article strictly about the word "voseo". Powers ^T 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I misread the article; I had thought it to be about a pronoun "voseo", rather than to be about the use of the actual pronoun "vos". I apologize for the error, as while I see how it happened, it really shouldn't have. Powers ^T 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Don't be silly. For a start, voseo is a noun, not an adjective: the term (not the word) describes the habit or practice of using vos instead of tú. Secondly, it is one of the geographically significant differences between Eastern hemisphere and Western hemisphere Spanish (there are many other local differences in each hemisphere): as such, it is mentioned in even basic grammars of Castilian, especially those aimed at foreigners (such as enwiki). Finally, I can find a featured article on thou, a similarly obscure part of English grammar for most foreign speakers, so there is no reason why this article couldn't be improved. Physchim62 (talk) 16:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- On what grounds do you suggest a speedy keep? Powers ^T 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, the nominator lists four reasoans for deleteion, the first three of which are obviously incorrect. I hesitate to call this a disruptive nomination as Angr (talk · contribs) has done above, but I would hope that the nominator would be willing to have article titles that s/he doesn't understand in an encyclopedia of over three million articles. The fourth argument, that Wikipedia "is not a textbook", could have been avoided by comparison with similar articles on foreign-language grammar: WP gives the evidence (and hence the information), but does not try to be didactic. This nomination has no basis in deletion policy, and so should be closed forthwith. Physchim62 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sorry; I meant which of the criteria at WP:Speedy keep apply? As far as I can tell, only if the nominator provides no deletion rationale at all, or if that rationale is clearly issued in bad faith, and if no one else has agreed with the deletion, can an AfD be closed as Speedy Keep (ignoring procedural issues such as wrong forum and banned users). Powers ^T 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is an important linguistic/sociolinguistic phenomena. (Aside: I took an entire class on it when I studied in Spain, and I'm not even a linguist!) Agree with Physchim62 above, esp. the part about thou. --Mûĸĸâĸûĸâĸû 18:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for two reasons. First, I think it's a topic of encyclopedic interest, and I think this article does a decent job covering it. Second, the "delete" voters don't seem to know what they're talking about. I realize that that's an ad hominem reason, but I think it's a valid one: if the nominators can't be bothered to the skim the first few paragraphs and see what the article is about, then I can't imagine their opinions about it are worth very much. (I say this because they seem to think it's a dictionary entry for the word voseo. It's a dictionary entry for the word voseo in exactly the same sense that Platypus is a dictionary entry for the word platypus: that is, it's about a topic that is identified by a single word, and that single word is the title of the article. Anyone who wants to claim that this a dictionary entry should be claiming that it's a dictionary entry for vos.) —Ruakh_TALK 18:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Yes, that does seem to be an ad hominen attack. This is a foreign word that heads up an article that describe the usage of foreign words. The title word is not in any English dictionary. This seems to be a specialist linguistics term, but the Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia. The Wikipedia is not a usage guide (WP:NAD). At the very minimum, the article need to be at an English article name. If the resultant name is too obscure, then the Wikipedia probably shouldn't have the article; as the concept is obviously too obscure for the audience. The Wikipedia is not a specialist linguistics encyclopedia; should the rules be bent or broken to try to make it this???- Wolfkeeper 19:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - WK, I support your attempts to remove dictionary content, but after reading the article more carefully, I don't think that applies here. Articles about language are very useful in an encyclopedia, as long as they don't simply describe the usage of a single word. This article describes a concept and its cultural impact in Spanish-speaking areas; its title is irrelevant to this discussion and can be changed with a move request if necessary. Powers ^T 20:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (ec) You're right, Ruakh. Although I don't appreciate the aspersion, as I merely misread the article, rather than skipping over it as you imply. I've retracted my recommendation above. Powers ^T 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this seems like a perfectly encyclopaedic article on one aspect of Spanish sociolinguistics. While some of the content, for example the conjugation tables, would be at home in a dictionary in context with the surrounding article (which is not dictionaric) they are equally appropriate here. Thryduulf (talk) 20:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing little of the keeps (really, folks, try actually reading WP:SK instead of assuming that strength of argument == strength of bold adjectives) which suggests that this article really stands alone from T-V distinction, given that it's barely sourced. While the actual nomination isn't very strong, a cursory examination of the article suggests that in its present form it's more of an essay on language, and it should be trimmed and merged into the master article until it's incubated. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 20:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree because this topic is an aspect of sociolinguistics important to Spanish. Captain Gamma (talk) 14:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've changed my mind on the article; although the title is a foreign word, and it could (and should) be translated into English without changing the article in any material way (although it might be a bit clumsy). This isn't the case with some of the other word articles like thou or prithee; it would not be possible to translate thou or prithee, including translating the title, and keep the article the same. This article is not a dictionary article in that sense. I don't think that needing renaming is enough to delete, that's just a guideline, and the material would be OK if merged (as in a proper merge rather than a delete merge.)- Wolfkeeper 20:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge. Quiensabe (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree completely with Angr. This is no more dictionary entry than, for example, Rhotic and non-rhotic accents is. garik (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep T-V distinction is already very long. This is a widely used term in English linguistics publications (usually referred to as "the voseo" or "the voseo phenomenon") and refers to much more than a bit of grammar description. It is both a sociolinguistic and philological phenomenon and is the subject of numerous studies in its own right. Just some examples where it is discussed in depth or is the subject of an entire article/monograph:

Braun, Terms of address: problems of patterns and usage in various languages and cultures, Walter de Gruyter, 1988

Penny, Variation and Change in Spanish, Cambridge University Press, 2004

Malkiel, Linguistics and philology in Spanish America: A survey (1925-1970), Mouton, 1973

Klee and Ramos-Garciá, Sociolinguistics of the Spanish-speaking world: Iberia, Latin America, Bilingual Press/Editorial Bilingüe, 1991

Baumenl-Schreffler, "The Voseo: Second person singular pronouns in Guatemalan speech" Language Quarterly, Volume 33, pp. 33-44, 1995

Newall, "The Loss of the 'voseo' in Chilean Spanish: Evidence in Literature" University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in Linguistics: Vol. 13: Iss. 2, Article 13, 2007.

Stevenson, The sociolinguistic variables of Chilean voseo, University of Washington, 2007

Benavides, The evolution of voseo, University of Texas at El Paso, 1993

The WP article is not currently well-written. It needs to have much more emphasis on the sociolinguistic aspects of the phenomenon and more reference to scholarly English language publications. At the moment it is simply descriptive and the lead needs to be seriously re-written so it doesn't sound like a simple definition or how to guide. But I don't see why the need for serious improvement qualifies an article on a notable subject for deletion. Voceditenore (talk) 14:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment The voseo phenomenon is not, strictly speaking, about the T-V distinction (another reason why not to merge), it's about the development of an alternative form of the "T pronoun" in Spanish. Voceditenore (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, important gramatical disctintion, not a dictionary entry. Mariano(t/c) 16:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is as notable as the article on Thou. If it can be improved then work on it, but there's no reason to delete. Ladril (talk) 16:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DBpedia

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

Unnotable project/organization. Fails WP:N, WP:ORG, and WP:WEB. Per lengthy talk page discussions, the bulk of the sources are articles written by those directly involved with DBpedia or Semantic Web itself. The few third-party, reliable sources either mention it in passing or are repeats of DBpedia's own press and soundbites. The Scientific America article is peer reviewed, but it was also written primarily by DBpedia members. This is true of the presentations and papers as well. They are reliable sources, of course, but also primary sources written by those directly involved and therefore cannot speak to its notability. Even the BBC link is just a glossary as part of its learning labs. Like the Amazon link, these are things submitted by those involved with DBpedia. The article itself was created by and is almost entirely written by DBpedia members, a clear conflict of issue. These are mostly self-identified or identified through the recent issue of the DBpedia templates being added to infobox documentation. Other than the single blog entry on the New York Times, noting that it was using the RDF which is used by both DBpedia and Freebase.

As a note, I strongly encourage anyone participating to actually read the talk page discussions, and to review the current references themselves, not just count them and say "its notable" as, again, almost all of them are from DBpedia itself. Note as well, I did also tag the article for possible merging to Semantic Web, however the continued disagreement between neutral editors and those involved in DBpedia and Semantic Web itself would seem to indicate that the notability issue needs to be discussed and dealt with in a more neutral, community based venue to determine if the article should exist at all. I would also ask that any involved in DBpedia who reply to this discussion please identify themselves, per Wikipiedia guidelines. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "most of them are from DBpedia themselves" versus exactly one person seems to think note is not established. OK, the article should not have been started autobiographically, but the suggestion of non-notability is simply incorrect. The statements made by Collectionian about peer review and citation, despite finding only dissent in talk, reveal a naivete which should be, by itself, sufficient for WP:SK. BarryNorton (talk) 17:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not at all clear how it fails WP:N. Used, and mentioned by, independent, reliable organisations such as the BBC and New York Times. Most of these independent sources are blog posts, which is not the gold standard, but by not means irrelevant regarding notability. (As an aside, the Scientific American was not written by dbpedia contributors, as far as I can see). shellac (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The significant BBC usage of Wikipedia data via DBpedia RDF is described in a paper that BBC staff co-authored with the DBPedia developers. Collectionian objects that "the bulk of the sources are articles written by those directly involved with DBpedia or Semantic Web itself", but provides no argument for why members of the (large, diverse and argumentative) Semantic Web community should be automatically presumed to be uncritical DBpedia fans. Many in the Semantic Web community would agree with the notability of DBpedia while questioning various specifics of the DBpedia approach. The talk page discussion also notes that the original publications about DBpedia by its developers have made significant impact on the computer science and information science literature, ie. they are highly cited by other researchers in the field. (Assuming we don't consider everyone working on Semantic Web themes intrinsically tainted...). A question: what kind of documentation might the BBC team be asked to provide, to help confirm the significance of DBpedia to their work? --DanBri (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant to the BBC != notability. ~~It should also be noted that DanBri was a cowriter of one of the papers cited.~~ -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(I cowrote which paper? not aware I was self-citing anything). I am certainly working with other BBC folk (via NoTube project, www.notube.tv) who have made clear their understanding of the potential major impact of Wikipedia as classification system (in RDF via DBpedia), and I have discussed this at length in a recent seminar on subject classification, including critique of the idea that Wikipedia/DBpedia alone provides an adequate classification system for archival access. This is all on the public record. --DanBri (talk) 18:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The BBC uses more than 5% of its 3.49 Billion GBP funding on Web projects (Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom). Their opinion is notable. BarryNorton (talk) 18:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian, could you please provide links for your claims? In this case, to which paper are you referring? And further, why is this relevant, are you claiming COI? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pldms (talk • contribs) 12:45, November 15, 2009

Sorry, I mixed you up with Derivadow. With all the unsigned stuff on the talk page, things are getting confusing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, Collectionian. But would you mind removing or annotating/updating your note here suggesting there's an issue with me co-authoring something? I did forget to sign some edits, sorry about that; and I'm not 100% familiar with the best conventions around here. --DanBri (talk) 19:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources identified establish notability. The 2 sources where Sir Tim Berners-Lee uses dbpedia as his main example, if nothing else. (Notes: I have no connection to dbpedia or anything related to it, at all. I think Collectonian has done an ok (albeit less-than-friendly) job reminding editors of COI issues to be aware of, but is going beyond rational objections by suggesting merging or deleting this article) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (disclosure: I work for the BBC and coauthored one of the papers referenced - however I did not add the reference to the dbpedia page; I did add the link to Tim Berners-Lee describing dbpedia as "one of the more famous parts of the Linked Data Project."). Dbpedia has been the subject of numerous peer reviewed papers (as referenced), it has been talked about on a number of occasions by the inventor of the web and is the subject of the paper I co-authored not because I work for dbpedia and wish to promote it but because it is an important component in the web architecture for significant chunks of bbc.co.uk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derivadow (talk • contribs) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. No need to add to the above, but FWIW http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=dbpedia&hl=en&btnG=Search obtains 856 'hits'. Mike Linksvayer (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits are not signs of notability, particular when the bulk of the papers are, again, written by DBpedia members itself. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't general Google hits, but Google scholar; generally academic research papers. As the Talk page mentioned citeseer 2007 ranks the 'What have Innsbruck and Leipzig in common? Extracting Semantics from Wiki Content' paper very highly. Collectionian, can you clarify what you mean by 'DBpedia members'? Are you suggesting that amongst the 856 hits on Google Scholar, there's nothing much of interest except by the people who actually created DBpedia?--DanBri (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point to any that are not written by those involved with the project? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just do a search for "dbpedia -bizer -auer -kobilarov -cyganiak -erling -idehen -hellmann -Jentzsch -Kreis -Lehmann -Schüppel" (where those are the names listed on the dbpedia.org credits page); it still matches 333 results. Doubtless some of the other authors are DBpedia enthusiasts, since they've been moved to write on the topic. And since the Semantic Web community try to foster collaboration, there's a good chance they've even tried to *help* the DBpedia effort too. Probably you could exclude a few more hits from the list by excluding practical-minded, collaborative and helpful people who're on the record as supporting the DBpedia effort. But really, why bother? --DanBri (talk) 20:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Google hits" is an extremely disingenuous term to use here. Plain Google hits are keyword-based, Google Scholar hits are much more sophisticated. Given that you remain the only one suggesting deletion I think you'd take a bit more care than making false accusations and adopting misleading terminology. (Dan just beat me to this) BarryNorton (talk) 20:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar hits are not that much more sophisticated, and do not include only peer review works, but also student thesis and other sources. They also do not filter out those written by those involved with DBpedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Google scholar hits are not that much more sophisticated" - I'm sorry, but do you even understand what keyword-based search is? You seem completely out of your depth here. BarryNorton (talk) 20:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar hits are clearly no more sophisticated or different from regular google results. The only difference is what it searches. As noted below, it is NOT limited to academic and reliable sources only, any more than any Google search result is. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This stands. If an independent editor feels it breaks policy then I'm prepared to take the consequences. I will not be censored to further your vendetta. Furthermore unless you find one vote to support your proposed deletion, or undo it, I will seek mediation tomorrow. BarryNorton (talk) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - 800+ Google Scholar hits, and the main paper has over 200 citations. No question that this has had significant influence and is notable. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, Google Scholar hits do not show notability. Google scholar results are NOT limited to only peer review works. In fact, my own junior college papers and personal essays which are purely self-published on my personal website appear in Google Scholar search results. Again, please show specific papers showing notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made my point sufficiently and stand by it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong, speedy keep - Apart from the 333 third party Google Scholar hits reported above, it reports 68 Google books hits, which seem to be from mostly third-party authors. Even if this was not the case (but it is), being the subject of tons of peer-reviewed publications and on the media surely makes it notable, even if most sources were from involved authors. But no need to worry: there are lots of third party RS here. --Cyclopia ^talk 21:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It seems pointless to try to add more to the overwhelming evidence of notability above – all of it, note, added by people who are not directly involved with the DBpedia project (being instead users of it as a core Semantic Web technology). Collectonian appears to believe that anyone who as much as knows about the DBpedia project is ipso facto no longer neutral enough to be allowed an opinion (I have literally never heard of any of the articles that Collectonian highlights on her talk page, apart from 101 Dalmations, but that doesn't mean they're non-notable) NormanGray (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The number of citations of papers about DBpedia show its notability. Nloth (talk) 21:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC) Edit: Disclaimer - I have no involvement with Semantic Web projects, and I would object VERY strongly to being characterized as a SemWeb fan. However, I once did have a paper that had "Linked Data" in the title presented at a conference.[reply]
Keep Passes WP:RS and WP:WEB. Warrah (talk) 23:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is written well and passes notability. - 4twenty42o (talk) 23:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep DBpedia is widely covered in published literature. For instance, it is described in this book http://my.safaribooksonline.com/9780596802141 and used in the examples. I don't believe DBpedia project members wrote those 68 books listed by Google book search. It seems notable enough to be covered in class. http://web.cecs.pdx.edu/~mm/nonstandard-computation2008/index.html I have no involvement in this subject apart from being a computer science student with an interest in future information lookup methods. Leif Warner Abimelech (talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons listed above. Several peer reviewed publications, conference proceedings, and the heavily referenced LNCS chapter are listed in the Google Scholar search listed. Several books mentioned above reference DBPedia. Several peer reviewed papers reference the use of DBPedia in methodology. Collectively, I think this clearly demonstrates notability. I have reviewed Talk:DBpedia as suggested by the nom, but I fail to see how it, or the nomination statement demonstrate that this is lacking in notability. FWIW I have had no involvement in DBpedia and hadn't heard of it until minutes ago -- Samir 08:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this article is in desperate need of a cleanup. But right now the article accomplishes little else but hammering home how notable it is. 90% of the article is a list of numbers with no context, mentions of other "interlinked" datasets with no mention of who is involved (an uneducated reader might think the CIA and US Census Bureau are using the DBpedia data), plus TBL's comment which doesn't really tell me anything (is DBpedia famous the same way TBL is famous?). Since you guys claim to know something about DBpedia, can you improve the article by answering some of these questions?

Who started the DBpedia project, and who maintains it?
How often is the dataset updated, and who does it?
What is the process through which the dataset is built (algorithms & software used, etc.)
How is DBpedia actually used? (Beyond "NYT includes links" and "BBC uses it to organize stuff".. I have no idea what that even means!)
In fact, how is OpenCalais even based on the NYT? I scanned the references and don't see any connection.--Jonovision (talk) 11:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jonovision, you're right it certainly has room for improvement. I tried recently to add an example, which shows - albeit for a technical audience who understand the idea of a query language - what DBpedia is capable of. My edit was reverted though ('not a howto'). The threat of deletion seems to have led to an overfocus on its notability at the expense of other information. What's the process for moving beyond the 'articles for deletion' stage, so that (if it's a keeper...) those who have the answers to these questions might feel it worthwhile contributing again? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanBri (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC) oops sorry always forget signing needed here! --DanBri (talk) 11:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing me to your edit. I guess your detailed example was a bit longish for this article (since it ends up focusing more on SPARQL than DBpedia itself), but as someone who doesn't know anything about DBpedia, I found these bits particularly useful: "By extracting factual information from thousands of Wikipedia page, DBpedia makes it possible to find the answers to questions where the relevant information is spread across several different Wikipedia entries. Since DBpedia normalises information into a single database, the following query can be asked without needing to know exactly which entry carries each fragment of information." Maybe that can be worked back into the article. --Jonovision (talk) 11:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I fully agree with Jonovision. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:37, 16 November 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 deleted. DS (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF IZU NO ODORIKO

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

Contested prod. Apparent personal essay. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Essay that isn't in English. Joe Chill (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it could be translated if it were appropriate material; but it is original research. JohnCD (talk) 17:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Opinion piece. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Plus, we already have an article on The Dancing Girl of Izu -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't read Japanese, but I've come to understand that this is a personal essay. If so, then it should be deleted. Regardless of that, any article that's been listed in Pages Needing Translation for long enough without progress should be deleted, but this is not yet the case here. JIP | Talk 18:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even by virtue of the title, unless this article is a round-up of critical analysis found elsewhere about the Izu dancing girl (which I doubt), it indicates that the piece itself is the author's critical analysis, whence it is inherently not a proper Wikipedia article. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It isn't in english. Plus, the title is Critical analysis : WP:NOT. --Stroppolo (talk) 22:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ignoring the fact that it's not in English, just by the title alone, it seems to be an OR personal essay. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook
Delete - essays don't belong here.--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Do you we even need to give a reason for deleting something that isn't in English? Doesn't this qualify as Speedy? Angryapathy (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only if it's an identical copy of an article found on a foreign-language Wikipedia. Otherwise it goes to WP:PNT where we decide its fate. An article listed there can be speedied if it meets any of the criteria at WP:CSD. If an article is deemed unworthy to be translated, or if no translator is found within a reasonable time frame, then it gets listed here. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it's now in English, but still obviously an OR essay. Tim Song (talk) 19:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thought I already !voted, but my concerns are WP:OR (not that it matters, consensus is overwhelmingly delete)--TParis00ap (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Apparently a machine translation has been delivered, which didn't improve the article at all. Wikipedia is not for OR and essays. De728631 (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In as far as anyone can tell, given that the machine translation is so bad it borders on patent nonsense, this is still an OR essay. It's snowball time. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE. WIKIPEDIA DOES NOT ALLOW ORIGINAL RESEARCH OR PERSONAL ESSAYS. WP:SNOW, ANYONE??? JBsupreme (talk) 18:14, 19 November 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. JForget 00:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keanu H. Clyde

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

Non- Noticable Actor and No sources whatsoever. Pookeo9 (talk) 15:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to fail WP:BIO. I can't find significant coverage for the subject of this article, and no sources are provided in the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced BLP - no sources given, none found. There are a lot of films called Blood Brothers but given that he is 17 it would have to be one of the two 2007 ones, and he's not listed in either. Nothing in IMDb. There is such a person - I've found him contributing to a blog - but he does not seem notable. I wonder is this maybe a prank or an attack page? JohnCD (talk) 17:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hoax. Should have been speedied. Abductive (reasoning) 21:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Hoax, but I'm not sure that it's a G3 hoax. There's no definition (that I can find) of "blatant and obvious"; but, if this _is_ an example, then by all means G3 it. Tevildo (talk) 23:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as per all statements above Alan - talk 05:29, 16 November 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. JForget 00:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finding Renee

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

The Movie is Non- Noticable, it has no sources or references and it sounds like a made-up movie. Pookeo9 (talk) 15:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete May be a hoax, or at the very least fails every one of the criteria at WP:FILMNOT. No sources or references are provided in the article, and I was unable to find coverage of the subject. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like possible hoax, or school kids having fun Alan - talk 05:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Alankc says it best: probably a schoolkid hoax to get their names on WP. Angryapathy (talk) 19:38, 16 November 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. JForget 00:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Stuart (statistician)

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

Statistics lecturer who has not attracted significant attention in the world of reliable sources, perhaps as evidenced by the lack of references in the article since it was created in 2006. Has published one book ( 2003) and a few papers in journals, all quite normal for an academic. Has attracted no news articles, writing in books or other third-party interest that I can see. does not meet the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Peripitus (Talk) 12:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article doesn't seem notable enough, nor does the article's subject. Alan - talk 05:35, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —John Z (talk) 12:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. MathSciNet only lists two articles by him, with no citations. GoogleScholar also shows little in terms of citability[23]. Does not appear to pass WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 13:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WoS lists 5 articles, 1 letter, and 1 abstract (using "Author=(stuart m*) Refined by: Institutions=(UNIV DUBLIN TRINITY COLL) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI" – not sure if he has other pubs, but this list goes back to 1980) and an overall h-index of 2. Very little impact over roughly 30 years. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 23:08, 16 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete on basis of clear evidence above. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 18 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Doubt. Just to note that MS's home page indicates a non-science publication by him (in a law journal) that would not be included in the counts above, so that indicates at least some influence outside his immediate field. Melcombe (talk) 11:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It may be the case that the "Dublin University Law Journal" is not indexed by the major indexing services (doesn't appear to be in WoS). The article doesn't seem show up on a GS search of his name either. This suggests that the article may not have been widely disseminated nor that it has had much impact. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 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. Article also moved to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Trotskyist League of Canada. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trotskyist League of Canada

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

non-notable. Lack of reliable sources and it is unlikely that significant sources will ever be found. Dynamic Cascade (talk) 19:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article could do with more info, like how many members etc. The League exists, and so does the publication. - what are the sales? Trotskyism is a bit out at the moment, but there might be notability here if more is added to the article. Peridon (talk) 19:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, self-promotion. My left index finger exists but has no wikipedia entry. It needs to be mentioned in media or literature to deserve an article. New seeker (talk) 10:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 17:02, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any good sources on Google or Google News,[24][25][26][27] appears to fail WP:N, and has no reasonable target for a redirect. --Explodicle (T/C) 17:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are some google news, books and scholar hits. I fail to understand the nominating editor's comment about it being "unlikely that significant sources will ever be found." That's an unprovable assumption. We can only go by what we have now. There seems to be a history here as a splinter group from a previous organization. A merge to Revolutionary Marxist Group (Canada) would be a possibility. I think with a bit of work, legitimate sources could be gleaned from the rest and this article could be saved. freshacconci talktalk 18:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't find any sources by the time the AfD closes, this might be a good candidate for the article incubator. --Explodicle (T/C) 18:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not aware of that. A nice idea (and this from someone who tends to tilt towards "deletionist" on the scale). Thanks for the heads-up. freshacconci talktalk 18:42, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what I am suppose to do in order to keep this article alive. But this group is quite active. They often have meetings scheduled at my local university (the University of British Columbia)Children of the dragon (talk) 10:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, find some references that will support the notability of the group - rather than just its existence. Peridon (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incubate to Wikipedia:Article Incubator/Trotskyist League of Canada per the suggestion by Explodicle. I cannot find significant coverage in reliable sources. A Google News Archive search and a Google Books search return mainly passing mentions. Cunard (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm aware of this org and I consider it to be prominent enough and here's a link to check on [28] (Starman005 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Comment That's a Google Australia search not a relevant reference. Please provide actual links if there are any. Peridon (talk) 21:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's barely an article. If someone wwants to do some real research and create a real wikipedia article about it, perhaps it would be better, but for what's there now, it's not worth having an article. Alan - talk 05:37, 16 November 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. JForget 00:18, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling

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

There has been plenty of anti-gambling commentary by NCALG spokespeople in notable sources but I don't believe this in itself is enough to demonstrate the organization's notability. Moreover this commentary tends to be 'token' in nature, in which a journalist throws in a dramatic quote courtesy of NCALG.[[29]][[30]]. Finally, it should be noted that the organization itself appears to be dwindling, with a decline in commentary over the past 10 years [[31]] and a home page that hasn't been properly maintained/updated for [two years]. Hazir (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. "Dwindling" is not a reason for deletion. Once notable, always notable. Even multiple "token" coverage of such an organization in the context of its mission can up to notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 14:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not temporary. If this organization was previously considered a key interest group on the issue of legalized gambling, then its notability has been established and cannot disappear simply because the organization is "dwindling." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is not temporary. Joe Chill (talk) 17:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this organization has ever been notable. Please ignore the 'dwindling' comment and address the main concern. Hazir (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. Per all the above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:39, 19 November 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 per WP:CSD G5

Farming Berbers

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

POV fork by User:Berber Pirate who is a sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked user, User:SOPHIAN. With the exception of the lead, the rest of the text was cut and paste from the Berber people, so there is really no new information. The term "farming berbers" itself is literally non-existent per google search. Wapondaponda (talk) 10:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this was split from Berber people#Genetic influence, with a lead section added that isn't verified by the cited source. Maybe the section could be split to a new article, but "Farming Berbers" isn't an appropriate title for it, and doesn't appear to be a notable topic. snigbrook (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In fact, can somebody give me a good reason why WP:CSD G5 doesn't apply here? See also User_talk:Jake_Wartenberg#CSD_farming_berbers. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I left some comments within the mtDNA section. There are interpretation and factual inaccuracies on the section. I am not sure why there is a section on E1b1b since the direction of gene flow is from different areas and peoples on NE Africa and W Asia into the Mediterranean. Minimally the page needs to be cleaned up. How do we qualify here whether the topic of Farming and Berbers is notable (or not) for its own page. Here is the two comments on splitting from the Berber page. "I think this split is a really terrible idea. I'm not sure that "nomatic" is even a word. I think a better daughter article would have been "Origins of the Berbers" or perhaps "History of the Berbers", but this particular split is dreadful. I really think a bit more discussion would have been a good idea. Wdford (talk) 11:07, 31 October 2009 (UTC)" And so we are.PB666 ^yap 16:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Either Delete it, or Merge it back as it was before the unnecessary and inappropriate split. Wdford (talk) 16:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is clearly in favor of keeping the article and disagrees with the nominator's claims that all sources are unfit to demonstrate notability sufficient for inclusion. Problems with blog sources can and should be dealt with editing. Consensus also favors renaming the article to Muslim Mafia (book) although the "(book)" is not required for disambiguation purposes. Regards So Why 10:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Muslim Mafia

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

This book, published last month by WorldNetDaily, does not meet this minimum notability requirement for books:

The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself, with at least some of these works serving a general audience. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries and reviews. Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary.

At the time of this nomination, the article's claims rely upon:

a blog,[32]
a blog that merely reprints the book's foreword authored by Sue Myrick,[33]
a blog interview with Sue Myrick in which she promotes the book,[34]
a blog about the actions of Sue Myrick that makes trivial mention of the book,[35]
an opinion blog at Salon.com about the actions of Sue Myrick and the author's website that ~~does not mention the book at all~~ mentions the book to say that Myrick wrote the foreword,[36]
a FOXnews.com article that debunks Sue Myrick's claims and makes trivial mention of the book,[37]
a KansasCity.com article about a lawsuit concerning the author's website,[38]
a FOXnews.com article about formal contact between the FBI and CAIR,[39]
a blog's coverage of a promotional press conference held by Sue Myrick,[40]
and Al Jazeera's coverage of that same press conference.[41]

Update: other sources presented:

a duplicate of the Kansascity.com article,[42]
an excerpt of C-SPAN's constant House coverage in which Keith Ellison responds to Myrick's press conference and makes trivial mention of the book,[43]
a duplicate of Keith Ellison's response,[44]
another duplicate of Keith Ellison's response,[45]
an interview with CAIR's Ibrahim Hooper about Sue Myrick and the FBI which makes only trivial mention of the book (this video would contribute more to the Sue Myrick article),[46]
a Rachel Maddow Show segment about Sue Myrick and CAIR which mentions the book only as far as to say that Myrick wrote the foreword and it was published by WorldNetDaily,[47]
a Rachel Maddow Show interview with Suhail Khan about Sue Myrick which reiterates that Myrick wrote the foreword and it was published by WorldNetDaily,[48]
a segment from Pat Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network (not a reliable source) about Sue Myrick's actions and CAIR.[49]
a trivial mention in a Countdown with Keith Olbermann clip which mentions Sue Myrick, the name of the book and the author's name, and then wrongly attributes a comment which the author made in an interview last week[50] as though it had been printed in the book,[51]
an interview with Sue Myrick which does not mention the book at all,[52]
a trivial mention in an interview with Sue Myrick which only mentions the name of the book,[53]
a blog,[54]
a public-access television interview with Ibrahim Hooper,[55][56]
an interview with the author, which cannot be used as an independent source for WP:N,[57]
trivial mention of the name of the book and a quote from Myrick's foreword,[58]
trivial mention of the book in an article about Myrick's actions and CAIR,[59]
a letter from Sue Myrick,[60]
another letter from Myrick,[61]
another letter from Myrick, this one hosted at WorldNetDaily,[http://www.wnd.com/files/cairirsletter.PDF]
trivial mention in a Politico.com article about the press conference,[62]
a duplicate of the Politico.com article,[63]
trivial mention in a blog's coverage of Tom Coburn,[64]
Steven Emerson's blog covering the press conference,[65]
Emerson's blog which mentions the name of the book,[66]
more from Emerson's blog,[67]
an opinion piece,[68]
coverage in Messiah Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times, not a reliable source,[69]
an article about Myrick's actions and the author's website,[70]
a recommendation by anti-Muslim author Daniel Pipes,[71]
a school newspaper,[72]
a blog,[73]
a blog,[74]
an opinion piece,[75]
a blog about Sue Myrick's actions which does not mention the book,[76]
a link to anti-Muslim author Daniel Pipes' website,[77]
the judge's opinion in the lawsuit about the author's website,[78]
a blog about the lawsuit concerning Gaubatz's theft,[79]
a Politico.com blog about the lawsuit,[80]
mention of the book on Frontpage Magazine, not a reliable source,[81]
an opinion piece on a blog,[82]
and promotion of the book on an extremist anti-Muslim blog which hosts authors who are openly racist.[83]

Not one of those sources is simultaneously independent, a reliable source, and giving non-trivial coverage of the book. So there is not enough content from reliable sources to write a good article about this book. Very little of the reliably sourced content is even about this book, and there is too little third-party detail to write the article. The book does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:BOOK. Delete. ~YellowFives 10:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ per nom. Very tenuous notability claims. I wasn't able to find anything else. Interested to see what the article creator has to say, perhaps he/she could bolster the article with offline resources. Hazir (talk) 11:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Change to Keep in light of significant improvements to the article. Hazir (talk) 03:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Muslim Mafia(book). Some of YellowFive's "blogs" are not what we would consider blogs in the sense of SPS, but are columns in news outlets such as Salon.com, Talking Points Memo, the Washington Independent, and FrontPage magazine. While some of these sources are there to provide background, a sufficient number of them discuss the book itself. That media coverage, together with attention from four members of Congress as described in the article, show that this new and growing article meets both the general notability guidelines and notability for books by a wide berth. I would also like to mention that the article was created only last night, and feel its nomination may be be an outgrowth of a dispute the nom, a new editor, was involved in at Anwar al-Awlaki and Nidal Malik Hasan. I might add that critical coverage of books dealing with national security, conspiracies, and so forth is something we should strive for on Wikipedia as an information outlet, and regardless of how some editors feel about the subject or the publisher, should not be a reason to remove sourced content. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:11, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except Salon.com does not mention the book at all. Talking Points Memo is a blog, as both our Wikipedia article and the Financial Times attest.[84] The Washington Independent might sound like a newspaper from the name of it, but it is just a blog founded in 2008 by the Center for Independent Media. In any case, the Washington Independent just reprints the book's foreword by Sue Myrick, and the notability guideline requires "sources that are independent of the book itself". FrontPage Magazine is not a magazine, and is not printed anywhere. It is a blog owned by David Horowitz that predates the popularity of the word "blog." In any case, FrontPage just has an interview with Sue Myrick, and again, we need third-party sources, not the words of an author. Show us which quote from the Myrick interview could be used as a reliable source about this book, and how much Wikipedia content on this book could be written from that quote.

I did see this new article mentioned from the Awlaki page, but that does not mean I'm not allowed to nominate it for deletion. The book does not meet the notability guidelines, so someone had to nominate it. ~YellowFives 16:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those still aren't "blogs" in terms of WP policy. We allow material from groups such as the Center for Independent Media, just as we allow material published by the SPLC, ACLU, and CAIR. Many of those media outlets you're deeming as "blogs" have been brought up on RSN and deemed reliable. Squidfryerchef (talk) 16:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please quote from the policy that says blogs aren't "blogs" if you say they aren't blogs? Is every single person or event that the SPLC or ACLU mentions on their website automatically notable? Would you care to show which quote from the Myrick interview could be used as a reliable source about the book? The goal here is to write a good article. How much content toward such an article could Myrick's interview contribute? ~YellowFives 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:V. The fifth footnote elaborates on the definition of "blog", and which kinds of blogs are not SPS. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:16, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering what you meant by SPS. Well, WP:V says "Blogs in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control." But these blogs are not hosted by newspapers. Specifically what content could be sourced from these blogs for use in the article? ~YellowFives 17:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While not all of those sources are distributed in printed format, they're still considered reliable secondary sources, they have editorial boards, and they're basically equivalent to newspapers. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of them are printed anywhere, ever. FrontPage certainly is not considered a reliable source. And even WorldNetDaily has an editorial board, but that doesn't make them equivalent to a newspaper. FrontPage has an interview with the author of the foreword (not an independent source) and the Washington Independent reprints the foreword (not an independent source). We need third party analysis and commentary. Again, what content toward an article can be sourced from these reprints? ~YellowFives 20:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The Washington Independent is a fleet-footed webpaper of politics and policy. We are the ink-stained wretches of the digital era. We aim for snap-crackle-pop reporting in our articles and blog posts – all working together to tell a bigger story. We provide thought-provoking commentary from insightful experts. We write to record scenes from the passing show, to stir things up and to keep the bastards honest. We seek to explore and define our nation and the context for our times."[85] That is equivalent to a newspaper? ~YellowFives 21:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like it passes book notability guidelines by a mile. CNN, MSNBC, CBN News, and Al-Jazeera gave the book airtime. If these four sources are believed to be non-trivial, then suggest follow WP:BEFORE and then and only then take these 4 TV network articles to AFD. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest you read the notability guideline. "Trivial" refers not to the size of CNN but the actual amount of coverage that they give to the book. I see no content in the article being sourced from these TV programs, so what exactly can they be used to say about the book? ~YellowFives 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep(I am original editor.) The source for this article is not a blog. For example these are the main sources:

Salon.com is hardly a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
Nor is Kansas City Star a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
Nor is News and Observer a blog, it easily meets WP:RS
Nor is Fox News a blog, it easily meets WP:RS

Moreover, nominator did not try to discuss article per wikipedia WP:BEFORE guidelines. Nomination reasoning paints a false picture by claiming liberal sources (included for balance) are blogs. Nomination simply seems to want to delete article and create a WP:POV on wikipedia that lacks mention of the main reason why 4 U.S. congressmen (Sue Myrick (R-NC), Trent Franks (R-AZ), John Shadegg (R-AZ), and Paul Broun ) held a press conference in which they claim that CAIR is creating a bad name for Muslim interns on Capital Hill. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One may quibble about whether Glenn Greenwald's opinion blog on Salon.com is a reliable source (I did not claim that all of Salon.com is a blog, but Greenwald's opinion blog is). But it doesn't matter for this article, because Greenwald does not mention the book. Not one word about it. I did not claim that the Kansas City Star is a blog. But the Kansas City Star's article is not about this book. It is about a lawsuit concerning the author's website. Where have you cited the News and Observer in the article? And I did not claim that Fox News is a blog (and I must wonder why you offered all these strawmen), but Fox's articles are about Sue Myrick and CAIR, not about this book.

Thank you for assuming bad faith about my intentions, but I have no problem with mention of this press conference on the articles of Sue Myrick, Trent Franks, John Shadegg, and Paul Broun. It's a fact that they held this press conference, and their articles can mention it. But that doesn't make the press conference itself inherently notable for its own separate article on Wikipedia, even if it's disguised as an article about an equally non-notable book. POV has nothing to do with a book's notability, but Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to be created just to promote The Truth. You may think the press conference was important, but that's not the same as notability. ~YellowFives 16:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Wikihounding and bad faith accusation!!!Trivially claiming that editors are assuming bad faith about your intentions twists the WP:AGF guidelines, rendering them much weaker for cases where such bad faith actually exists. Strongly recommend that you don't do it again. If you do twist WP:AGF like this against me again, I will take it as a case of WP:wikihounding. Thanks in advance. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Nomination simply seems to want to ... create a WP:POV on wikipedia" certainly sounds like an accusation of bad faith to me. You could clarify what you meant by that instead of accusing me of "Wikihounding" you. ~YellowFives 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This "quote" cuts up the original statement as well as takes it out of context. Note the use of nomination instead of nominator among other things. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a serious response. Including what was left out, "Nomination simply seems to want to delete article and create a WP:POV on wikipedia", does not make your statement any less of an obvious accusation of bad faith against me. "Nominations" do not "want" anything. Only editors "want" things. So you obviously were talking about me. Now, why don't you clarify what you meant instead of just complaining that I supposedly took you out of context. ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a pretty bizarre assertion that this article about a book is really camouflage for an article about a press conference. I looked at the article, and it seemed to be about a book to me. As far as Salon columns being "blogs", they aren't, they are published by Salon.com and subject to Salon's editorial board; the debate over newspaper columns being "blogs" has been settled long ago on WP. As far as whether the Salon piece counts towards background information on the author rather than notability of the book, it doesn't matter because there are already multiple independent RS's that discuss the book. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this time, a third of the article is devoted to Myrick's conference and a third of the article is devoted to the author's website. Glenn Greenwald's opinion blog is subject to Salon's editorial board? Are you sure about that? It's explicitly an opinion piece. But are you in agreement that the Salon piece does not contribute to notability of the book? ~YellowFives 17:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like it's all centering around the book. Of course what columnists write is subject to the newspaper's editorial policy. If they weren't, there would be a disclaimer similar to those seen on reader comment pages. Yes, it is OK to cite opinion pieces. But after looking at the Salon article myself, it appears the author identifies the book as the source of the Congressional inquiry, and identifying something as an actor in the situation being described is not a trivial mention. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I didn't see the part at the bottom of the page where you have to click to see more of the blog entry. Greenwald does mention the book eventually, in the twelfth paragraph. He says that Myrick wrote the foreword, and then he immediately goes on to attack the author Dave Gaubatz's website and his earlier claims of finding Saddam Hussein's WMDs. Greenwald makes absolutely no critical analysis of the book itself.

You aren't accurately portraying what WP:N says about trivial mentions. The triviality does not refer to the importance of the claim. For instance, Gaubatz's claim that he found Saddam's WMDs, and the Bush administration conspired to cover up his finding, would be a very important claim, especially if he had any evidence for it whatsoever. But if a source just mentions this claim and dismisses it out of hand, without significant critical discussion, then the mention of that very important claim is a trivial mention. That is the case with Greenwald's mention of this book. He says it was written by Gaubatz and the foreword was written by Myrick. This is a trivial mention, as Greenwald tells us nothing more than the book jacket already did. ~YellowFives 20:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know triviality doesn't refer to the ordinariness/extraordinariness of the Gaubatz claim. But it can refer to the significance the Salon writer attached to it. The Salon article is basically about a recent hubbub in Congress. A few paragraphs down the author basically states the hubbub was all started by that book. That's not a trivial statement about the book, that's a pretty strong statement. A nontrivial mention doesn't require a specific word count. Squidfryerchef (talk) 21:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is incorrect. Triviality explicitly does not have anything to do with the significance that the writer attaches to the topic (which is in this case no significance at all, as evidenced by the complete lack of discussion of the book, and the outright dismissal of it with no further discussion). Look at WP:GNG: "Significant coverage means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material." Triviality is contrasted to detail about the subject, in this case the book. But the Salon article has no detail at all concerning the book. It says that Myrick wrote the foreword, and Gaubatz wrote the book, nothing more. This is the most extreme example of triviality: "The subject of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment." Triviality in the context of WP:N always refers to the amount of detail in the coverage. Please quote something from Greenwald's blog that can be used to write a detailed article about this book. ~YellowFives 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep - per points quite articulately made, and discussed with impressive patience, by Squidfryerchef and Firefly.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question - Please don't get bogged down in discussions of other editors and WP:BEFORE, can we concentrate on the issues? My question is exactly is the content of any of these sources actually discussing the book as opposed to the issues that are the subject of the book. And what proportion of the airtime of the relevant broadcasts discuss the book itself? Which, if any, of the sources are just repeats of other sources? Dougweller (talk) 10:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the wp:before questions are certainly fair questions, actually. As is your question. If you take even a quick glance at the articles out there as I just did, you will see that the Washington Times column and the Denver Post op piece by the former Congressman contain significant treatment of the book. Those by themselves satisfy criterion 1. I urge the nom to withdraw his nomination, or if he does not I hope someone snows this to avoid waste of everyones' time.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why? "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary." I see no critical commentary, just a use of material of the book to discuss, one might even say bash, CAIR, etc. I don't think the Washington Times qualifies in any case under footnote 2 ""Non-trivial" excludes personal websites, blogs, bulletin boards, Usenet posts, wikis and other media that are not themselves reliable " Dougweller (talk) 11:05, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This book Muslim Mafia has been the source of ~~four~~ U.S. congressmen's (five if we includeTom Tancredo) public claims that CAIR has ties to Muslim extremists. This is a specific, testable claim. --Firefly322 (talk) 11:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The editorial columns found in the Washington Times and the The Denver Post are unique because they are written by two notable figures: Bill Gertz and Tom Tancredo respectively. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Each incident of coverage about CAIR prompted by the book is a unique news event. CNN, CSPAN, Fox News, MSNBC, CBN, and Al-Jazeera. That all six networks mention the book is what is noteworthy.--Firefly322 (talk) 12:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I gather you found nothing to meet the guideline "Some of these works should contain sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary."? Dougweller (talk) 13:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sought to reflect critical commentary coverage. Most of it is in the below collapsed green bar (materially temporarily deleted from the article, but for your consideration nevertheless).--Epeefleche (talk) 20:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOOK is a general (mostly historical) guideline. It cannot be expected to anticipate unique instances of notability such as the circumstances surrounding this book. Nor should it be applied in a procrustean manner.--Firefly322 (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, these unique circumstances surrounding Muslim Mafia certainly allows this "article to grow past a simple plot summary". --Firefly322 (talk) 13:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep conflating subjective importance with notability, Firefly. The notability guideline requires substantial non-trivial coverage of the book because that is the only way a verifiable article about the book can ever be written. You can insist that we should pretend the guideline does not apply, but that doesn't get you any closer to fulfilling the purpose of the guideline, which is to write a good article about this book, not about a press conference, not about Sue Myrick, and not about CAIR. ~YellowFives 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, not even from Tom Tancredo. There's plenty of media coverage of CAIR here, but they were already a notable organization which got regular media coverage like the ACLU does. And from all that media coverage of CAIR, the only thing you can say about the book is "it has been the source of four U.S. congressmen's public claims that CAIR has ties to Muslim extremists." How does that single sentence make a good article about the book? Where is the critical commentary on the book that can be included in the article? ~YellowFives 13:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Notability guideline requires": Stating that a guideline requires anything sounds insane to me. Care to rethink this?--Firefly322 (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The notability guideline requires certain things to fulfill the purpose of the guideline. That does assume people agree that notability is worth having. If you would like to argue that this particular article should not be required to demonstrate notability, you can try to make that argument. It would not be a violation of policy, but it would probably be unpersuasive to AFD readers. ~YellowFives 13:47, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. this and this two independent, reliable, third party sources that are incorporated into the article are enough to satisfy WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 13:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The KansasCity.com article is not about the book but rather the author's website, and Messiah Sun Myung Moon's Washington Times is not a reliable source. Neither is incorporated into the article to provide any substantive content except "you should read this book!" Could you show a quote from the KansasCity.com article that could be used to source substantive article content about this book? (You're the first keep voter who isn't involved at the Anwar al-Awlaki article, though, so that's refreshing.) ~YellowFives 14:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response. There are times when a 'book' is more notable than its contents; this notability is often caused by controversy. The Satanic Verses is a classic example of this and IMO this book falls into that category. So in this case I beleive WP:GNG should be considered rather than WP:BK. In the KC article there is a federal judge referring to the book, that's notable to me. As for the Washington Times, over the past two years it has evolved into a very different paper than it was in the past and I'm comfortable with considering the article for proof of notability in this case. J04n(talk page) 15:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moon's remarks in September 2009: "Who is the president of the Washington Times? Who is the original ancestor? When we first made the newspaper in America, who was the beginning point? It was me. If we talk about Washington Times, we cannot say anything without Reverend Moon. You should not think that the Washington Times can move apart from Father. At any time, I can disband the Washington Times and make a similar newspaper in China or Russia. ... In America, through homosexuality and lesbianism people’s bodies are messed up. Will God want to touch any part of those bodies? ... I worry whether to keep the Washington Times alive. The Washington Times has to take responsibility for people going to hell in America."[86]

The paper is now in the middle of a power struggle while Moon's three sons fight each other for control. Three executives have been fired in the last week, armed guards separate staffers from the management, and the editor has stopped coming to work.[87] This is not an atmosphere that fosters journalistic integrity.

As for this book, the judge in the KansasCity.com article appears to mention that the book was written by Gaubatz, and that is all he says about the book. That is the definition of a trivial mention which does not count to WP:N. The Satanic Verses received plenty of literary criticism unrelated to the threats against Rushdie, the book won the Whitbread Award and was a finalist for the Booker Prize. So that book was notable already without controversy, and the comparison does not apply. ~YellowFives 15:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like our opinions differ; I doubt either of us will change the other's mind. Your points are valid as I believe are mine. ~~The only thing I want to point out is that Rushdie's book received no attention or accolades until after the controversy.~~ J04n(talk page) 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is simply not true. Rushdie was already a world-renowned author by the time The Satanic Verses was published, and everything he wrote received attention because he was Salman Rushdie. Midnight's Children had already won the Booker Prize in 1981, and Shame won the Prix du Meilleur Livre Étranger in 1984. The Satanic Verses was released on 26 September 1988, it won the Whitbread Prize on 8 November 1988, and the Ayatollah issued his fatwa on 14 February 1989. Your points are not valid because you do not address the question of substantial/trivial coverage that WP:N centers upon. Which content from the KansasCity.com article could source substantive article content about this book? ~YellowFives 16:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike that statement then, you are obviously more expert in this area than me. J04n(talk page) 16:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This GNews search seems to turn up more RS mentions than those mentioned above. Jclemens (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Here's one: Court House News article. It's an article written for attornies. --Firefly322 (talk) 17:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notice that article is not about the book, but about the lawsuit concerning Gaubatz's theft. ~YellowFives 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not about the book, odd then isn't it that they illustrate the article w/a picture of the book's cover. Or perhaps that's beacause the litigation is about steps taken as they researched the book.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it's because they didn't have a photograph of Gaubatz stealing documents from CAIR. If you think that courthousenews contains significant coverage of this book then could you please provide a quote from it that could be used to source substantive article content about this book? ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Mostly non-notable book, now being used as a BLP-coatrack by an editor who WP:OWNS the article. Hipocrite (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who WP:OWNS the article? And what have they done to make you say that? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:46, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The nominator seems to be asserting that the article meets the GNG, but not the SNG WP:BOOK. An extensive RfC a year ago rejected the notion that an SNG-covered article must meet BOTH the SNG and GNG: Wikipedia:Notability/RFC:compromise#Proposal B.5: SNGs override GNG Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the article fails both WP:GNG and WP:BOOK, and I have not suggested differently. There is no significant coverage of the book in reliable sources that are independent. The claim that this book is important anyway, even though it does not meet WP:N, does not help us write a substantive article. ~YellowFives 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Jclemens. That's how I interpeted the discussion so far. I think the majority of editors can agree that the book because of the high number of notable people either publically endorsing or publically denouncing the book, it meets WP:GNG. --Firefly322 (talk) 19:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How could you have completely misunderstood me when I made several comments mentioning only WP:N and WP:GNG with no reference to WP:BOOK? Without any doubt, I have been saying the book does not meet either the general notability guideline or the special guideline for books.

Notability is not inherited. It doesn't matter how many people make trivial mention of the book, whether to endorse it or dismiss it. What matters is whether they give significant coverage to it, making substantive statements that can be used to source the article. So for example when Rachel Maddow mentioned the name of the book, mentioned that Sue Myrick wrote the forword, mentioned that WorldNetDaily published it, and nothing more, that was the definition of a trivial mention. And if Joe Freshman-Journalist would write a substantive article about the book in a reliable source, that relatively unknown author would have contributed significant coverage where Rachel did not. It doesn't matter who's talking. It matters what they're saying.

And if you think I'm wrong about this, please point me to the part of WP:N where it says that trivial mentions by important people don't count as trivial mentions. ~YellowFives 20:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I spent the past hour and a half reading up on all the circumstances surrounding this subject, getting up to speed on all the arguments here, and reviewing the existing policies regarding books, notability, and sourcing. I waffled between keep and delete approximately 3 times, but looking back on the body of argument, I noticed that the book is only mentioned in news stories about other barely-notable activities of the author (who, at this time, is not notable himself). The way I see it, the book is close to qualifying as notable but only time will tell if it actually becomes so. For now, I recommend deletion.
--K10wnsta (talk) 21:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

11 refs and related texted temporarily removed from article, but for consideration as indicia of notability

Comment. This has been wheeling, as 1) editor A says we need more x (e.g., sufficient critical commentary to allow the article to grow past a simple plot summary); 2) editor B (e.g., me) seeks to address that by putting it in the article; 3) editor C cries "coatrack"; 4) editor D (e.g., Firefly, well intentioned and seeking to satisfy editor C, deletes the material that addresses editor A's comment).

Since we can't very well discuss matters without people seeing the refs that were deleted, so that they can consider them, I'll for the moment park the most recently deleted text and refs below:

...^[1]...

...Bill Gertz, writing in the November 12 edition of the Washington Times: "Federal investigators chasing e-mail and other communication links between Fort Hood shooting suspect Army Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan and radical Islamist cleric Anwar al-Awlaki should consult a new book that cites documents on the al Qaeda imam."^[2] ....Tom Tancredo (formerly R-CO), writing in the November 6 edition of the The Denver Post, noted that the book was already gaining attention as four Congressman have asked the House sergeant-at-arms to investigate allegations in the book of double agents having been placed inside Congress by CAIR, and opined that the book's:

"allegations will be dismissed as alarmist by many, but critics will have to confront the book's extensive documentation. Its authors ... have national security backgrounds and solid reputations. The most controversial part of the book is the relationship between CAIR and the international Muslim Brotherhood... Our nation's news media often turn to CAIR for a "moderate Muslim response" to events of the day. Yet this book shows that the mask of moderation covers its real mission....if the authors ... are correct, we ... may well be growing and training our own brand of domestic terrorists who know how to destroy our nation from within."^[3]

The New English Review reviewed the book on October 14, 2009, writing "It is an important assessment of the threat of the Muslim Brotherhood in America."^[4] Phyllis Chester, reviewing the book for Pajamas Media, called it "an important, perhaps even an explosive and sensational book".^[5] A review of the book by Investigative Project suggested that the book simply confirmed with examples what was already known, noting: "The book reinforces th[e] conclusion [about CAIR] with internal examples."^[6]

The book, published three weeks prior to the Fort Hood shooting, contains one sentence that is especially distubing, given what happened three weeks later:

"A senior Homeland Security official warns that Aulaqi—whom he describes as an "al-Qaida supporter"—is actively targeting U.S. Muslims with radical online lectures ecouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen."^[7]

As it turns out, the sole suspect in the Fort Hood shooting, Nidal Malik Hasan, attended the the Dar al-Hijrah mosque when Anwar al-Awlaki was the imam there, and Hasan reportedly has deep respect for al-Awlaki's teachings.^[8] Furthermore,intelligence agencies intercepted 10 to 20 emails over several months starting in December 2008 until early 2009 between Hasan and al-Awlaki.^[9] Soon after the attack, a posting on al-Awlaki's website praised Hasan for the shooting, and encouraged other Muslims serving in the military to "follow in the footsteps of men like Nidal,"^[10] though the Los Angeles Times reported that the posting could not be confirmed immediately to have been authored by al-Awlaki.^[11]

^ Elliot, Justin, "Citing Work Of Right-Wing Intern Spy, GOP Accuses Muslim Group Of Infiltrating Hill With Intern 'Spies', TPMMuckraker, October 14, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009
^ Gertz, Bill, "Inside the Ring: Hasan connection", Washington Times, November 12, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009
^ Tancredo, Tom, "The threat of the "Muslim Mafia", The Denver Post, November 6, 2009, accessed November 16, 2009
^ "Muslim Mafia: an important investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in America" New English Review, October 14, 2009, accessed November 5, 2009
^ Chester, Phyllis, "Muslim Mafia Exposed", Pajamas Media, October 15, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009
^ "Book Exposes CAIR's Exaggerations, Efforts to Stymie Law Enforcement", Investigative Project, October 15, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009
^ Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, Gauvatz, Dave, and Sperry, Paul, p. 64, WND Books (2009), ISBN 1935071106, 9781935071105
^ Sherwell, Philip; Alex Spillius (November 7, 2009). "Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved November 10, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)
^ "FBI reassessing past look at Fort Hood suspect". Seattle Times. November 10, 2009.
^ Hess, Pamela and Sullivan, Eileen, "Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter," Associated Press, November 9, 2009, accessed November 10, 2009
^ Meyer, Josh (November 9, 2009). "Fort Hood shooting suspect's ties to mosque investigated". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

--Epeefleche (talk) 18:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move to Muslim Mafia(book). This is clearly a case of attempted censorship to enforce a POV. It is ridiculous to mention that everybody from Fox-right to Maddow-left on MSNBC talks about the book, but asssert that it's not notable. Bachcell (talk) 21:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I can't be making a reasonable argument about what constitutes trivial coverage and reliable sources. I must be trying to censor The Truth. That's the only explanation. Except that I've already said there's nothing wrong with mentioning this at the Sue Myrick article where it belongs.

Go ahead and watch the Rachel Maddow clips. She mentions the name of the book, the author of the foreword, and the publishers. That's a patently trivial mention. Please give us a quote from the Maddow clips that could be used to source substantive article content about this book. ~YellowFives 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move, per reasons given by Bachcell. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is an article about a book, as well as controversy surrounding the publication of the book and the production of the book. If we really wanted to be pedantic, we could call it "Muslim Mafia book controversy", and negate many of the arguments for deletion, though that would be kind of an awkward title. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What Squid said. Saying that the controversy about the book is irrelevant because it is not about the book per se, is like saying book reviews are irrelevant because they are about reviews ... not the book per se.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analogy is flawed. A book review is about a book. It's only one step removed: review → book. But, for example, the courthousenews piece is about a lawsuit about a theft of documents that were removed from Gaubatz's website promoting the book, four steps removed: news → lawsuit → theft → website → book. You have the opportunity to show that I'm wrong, just by giving a quote from the courthousenews piece that could source a substantive article about this book. ~YellowFives 16:05, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Epeefleche. I read what was under the collapse and it looks like there are some new sources that are critical book reviews that should be added back to the article. But I don't agree that the material about Ft. Hood belongs. The article should center around the book, the author, and the controversy. Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If sources address this book in context to the Ft. Hood shootings then there is no reason not to include that, NPOV insists on it actually. We go where the sources lead and the Ft. Hood shooting is a huge story that was magnified so close to US Veteran's Day holiday. -- Banjeboi 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Seems there are plenty of sources already and more coming. ~~I found this review pretty quick. And~~ here's a few more even after removing the dreck. So book meets GNG and sourcing is certainly available. -- Banjeboi 16:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a review. It is the foreword of the book, the beginning of the book itself. The book can not be used as a source for its own notability. This "source" was mentioned at the very beginning of this AFD. It is "sources" like this that are being used to confuse people and give a false veneer of notability to a non-notable book. ~YellowFives 16:56, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad on the forward but there certainly does seem to be plenty of sources that are reliable by our standards.

Muslim Mafia: an important investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in America New English Review, 14 October 2009.
Judge: Controversial 'Muslim Mafia' used stolen papers: 'Muslim Mafia' author, championed by Rep. Myrick, ordered to strip questioned documents from Web site. Charlotte Observer, Nov. 10, 2009.
CAIR sues "Muslim Mafia" authors Politico.com, November 02, 2009.
The threat of the "Muslim Mafia" (opinion piece) Denver Post, 11/06/2009.
GOP Lawmakers Accuse Muslim Advocacy Group CAIR of Planting Spies on Capitol Hill Fox News, October 15, 2009.
Author of Muslim Mafia, Endorsed By John Shadegg, Uses Fort Hood Tragedy to Rally "Backlash Against the Muslim Community" Phoenix New Times, 9 November 2009.
Muslim Mafia: CAIR's Inner Workings Exposed Hawaii Free Press, October 15, 2009.
House GOP seeks Muslim 'spy' probe Washington Times, October 15, 2009.
Myrick sees plot in Muslim group Charlootte Observer, Oct 18, 2009.
Congressional document [88] myrick.house.gov.

I don't have a whole lot of time right now so I'll respond to the first two. The "New English Review" is an extremist anti-Muslim blog which hosts authors who are openly racist and homophobic. Look on the left side of that page and you can see a list of what they are promoting and selling: "Recent Publications by New English Review Authors: ... Geert Wilders: Why I Am In America Fighting For Free Speech". Geert Wilders has called for the Koran to be banned, and he's been condemned by the Jewish Anti-Defamation League, who certainly can not be accused of a pro-Muslim bias.[89] The New English Review can not be considered a reliable source.

The Charlotte Observer piece contains barely any information about the book. It says it was written by Gaubatz. It says the foreword was written by Myrick and she has been promoting it (obviously). What else does it say? Specifically what content from that piece could be used to write a substantive article about this book? That's the same problem with so many of the sources I already listed at the top of the page. They don't really talk about the book at all. The Charlotte Observer talks extensively about a theft. That's fine, but it doesn't help write an article about this book (that's why WP:BOOK requires some critical commentary, because it's necessary to write a good article about any book). ~YellowFives 20:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We may have to agree to disagree here. Frankly if sources that you or someone else thinks are wobbly then in each case it can be looked at to see what content tey are supporting and if they are even needed. WP:RSN can help sort out which sources can be used for what. In just a brief search it was apparent that Sean Hannity has been talking the book into interest so even if many/all of the sources are quite right-wing we simply report that. Tu sagain it becomes a clean-up rather than deletion issue. -- Banjeboi 21:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The book and its author are mentioned in the Congressional Record October 26, 2009. This really gives a lot of weight to this book meeting wikipedia's general notability guideline. WP:GNG. Perhaps this can help curtail this discussion? --Firefly322 (talk) 17:00, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Remember this?

an excerpt of C-SPAN's constant House coverage in which Keith Ellison responds to Myrick's press conference and makes trivial mention of the book,[90]

That was the video you already posted of Ellison's response to Myrick on the House floor. Now you present a written record of that video and you pretend it's a new and separate source.

What does Ellison say about the book? He mentions the name of the book, the name of the author, and the name of the foreword's author. Again, the same content we would get from reading the book cover, and the definition of a trivial mention. ~YellowFives 17:44, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you aren't seriously suggesting that everything and everyone ever mentioned in the congressional record is WP:N-notable, are you? ~YellowFives 19:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad idea to twist the guideline meaning of "trivial mention" from random word conjunction into pointed coverage.
Per the WP:Notability guideline "trivial mention" would be this usage of "Muslim Mafia".
The appearance of the book in the Congressional Record is neither a random word conjunction nor a ~~non~~-trivial instance

--Firefly322 (talk) 19:45, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you do not understand what WP:N actually says, Firefly. I will quote it to assist you:

Examples: The 360-page book by Sobel and the 528-page book by Black on IBM are plainly non-trivial. The one sentence mention by Walker of the band Three Blind Mice in a biography of Bill Clinton (Martin Walker (1992-01-06). "Tough love child of Kennedy". The Guardian.) is plainly trivial.

See, triviality does not refer to "random word conjunction." In fact nothing like that is suggested anywhere in WP:N, or anywhere else but your imagination. So this is not even a trivial mention of "Muslim Mafia" because it is not a mention of the book at all. A trivial mention is something like mentioning the band Three Blind Mice without saying anything more about them, it is not simply saying the words "three blind mice" when not talking about the band. WP:BOOK explains what triviality means in the context of books. Here it is again to assist you:

The "subject" of a work means non-trivial treatment and excludes mere mention of the book, its author or of its publication, price listings and other nonsubstantive detail treatment.

Ellison mentions the name of the book, the name of the author, and the name of the foreword's author. That is literally the definition of a trivial mention. ~YellowFives 20:41, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still wondering what you think is so special about Ellison's speech being printed in the congressional record, when you already linked to a video of him speaking on the House floor. Did you think that he was going to give that speech yet it somehow wasn't going to be entered into the congressional record? Do you think that everything mentioned in the congressional record is notable to Wikipedia? ~YellowFives 20:50, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're well beyond trivial mentions. In the article itself we already have the pieces by Steven Emerson, Bill Gertz, Congressman Tom Tancredo, and Dean Obeidallah; we also have these two videos with comments on the book by Ibrahim Hooper, the spokesman for CAIR --[91][92], and then there is the article in The Politico and perhaps the New English Review. And that's without even mentioning all of the coverage relating to the litigation relating to the book, and the endorsement by Congressmen (and pushback by one Congressman) spurred by the book. I think at this point, as most editors here have reflected, its beyond cavil that we have notable coverage. Though if you wish, I guess we can countenance continued wikilawyering a bit longer.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep Meets WP:N. Whether the book is accurate or whether the book is idiotic and hateful simply doesn't matter. Meets notability at this point. JoshuaZ (talk) 06:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article meets the three core content policies and WP:BK.--RekishiEJ (talk) 10:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notable and well-sourced. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, William. I guess this is now officially a Who's Who of the Fort Hood shooting. Is it appropriate for you to follow me here from my contributions? ~YellowFives 19:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on content and not the editors. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just asked if that was appropriate behavior. You know I haven't been able to read every rule here at Wikipedia yet. ~YellowFives 19:57, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is notable and filled with sources. PÆonU (talk) 08:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The 45 sources seem adequate to demonstrate notability. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several are duplicates, and not one of them is simultaneously independent, a reliable source, and giving non-trivial coverage of the book. The article has been fluffed up impressively, but it's mostly air. ~YellowFives 04:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find that view somewhat surprising. What about the views expressed by Steven Emerson, Bill Gertz, Congressman Tom Tancredo, Daniel Pipes, Phyllis Chesler, Dean Obeidallah in The Huffington Post, the opinion piece in Dubai's Khaleej Times, and TPMMuckraker's coverage? Just to pick a handful. Note, btw, that certain papers may be suitable for reporting opinions (i.e., carrying articles with the opinions of others), even if they may not be suitable for facts (if there is evidence of failure to check facts). Also -- you say "several are duplicates". Which "several" are your referring to? Thanks. Finally, I would bring your attention that every one of the last ~~eight~~ ~~nine~~ ~~ten~~ ~~eleven~~ twelve [including the four below] editors has spoken up in favor of the notability of this article and keeping it. By withdrawing the AfD in the face of overwhelming lack of community support, you will save others time they may otherwise waste by participating in this AfD that you started.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Emerson is writing opinions on his blog that no editor can challenge. He is not a reliable source. Bill Gertz is writing in the Washington Times, not a reliable source. Tom Tancredo is writing an opinion piece that does not give us much verifiable to say about the book. Daniel Pipes is Daniel Pipes, and is not a reliable source. Phyllis Chesler is writing at a notoriously unreliable blog. Dean Obeidallah is writing at a notoriously unreliable blog. The Khaleej Times is an opinion piece and does not give us much verifiable to say about the book. TPMMuckraker covers Myrick's actions, not the book. The duplicates are listed above. Thanks. ~YellowFives 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

YellowFives, please don't keep repeating your arguments to every editor who weighs in. AFD is not a chatroom. Squidfryerchef (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yellow, its disruptive to seek to mislead editors. I think you know that opinion pieces by notable people are excellent indicia of notabilty. Your assertions that they are not, because for example of your personal view that editor x "hates Muslims" (which, I would point out, is an out-and-out BLP violation, which I am shocked you would engage in, as it is forbidden on Wikipedia), for example, is somewhat short of a credible argument. Furthermore, you fail to show any evidence that the sources in question cannot be used, even where you do not attack the notable writer for their feelings about Muslims, becaue their opinion pieces are written in what you view as sources not reliable for fact-checking -- certainly you are not suggesting that these sources are changing the words of the individuals who submitted their opinion pieces to them. This level of dogged less than forthright skewed tenditious editing is generally views as less than helpful.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't presume to tell me how or with whom to communicate, Squidfryerchef. The editor above commented shortly before I addressed the rest of the "45 sources," so I called attention to that update. ~YellowFives 02:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect back to Muslim Mafia (book) per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#Subtitles. Notable and well-sourced. Location (talk) 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think, judging from the list of sources at the front of this nomination, it's entirely possible the nominator doesn't understand WP:RS. Reliable sources don't need to be impartial. You needn't agree with them. They merely need to have a decent editorial process and some reputation for fact-checking. MSNBC, Politico, Wash Times, Huffington Post (with care taken around their editorial columns), National Review, Frontpage Magazine, etc., all qualify. I wouldn't have thought a book like this would've engendered this level of controversy, but to say it's notable is a dramatic understatement. Ray^Talk 04:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Ray^Talk 04:11, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nominator's list of sources makes the argument. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:22, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Mbz1 (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete a7, no assertion of notability. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Title run films

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

non notable production company. zero google hits other than on Wikipedia. Appears to have been created by someone with a conflict of interest. No third party references. noq (talk) 10:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and recommend early close per nom - non-notable company. Hazir (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy A7. Active assertion of non-notability ("Title Run Films has no current affiliations, promotion or distribution rights from the United Football League, it's sponsors or direct affiliates."). Appropriate tag added. Tevildo (talk) 11:38, 15 November 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. Wizardman 18:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GMail Drive

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

Unnotable GMail hack. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by random IP with not of "rm PROD - lots of ghits, several gnews hits" however, an actual check shows none except for two non-English ones that looks like blogs. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [93], ZDNet, reviewed by CNet, TechCrunch coverage, LifeHacker, engadget --Cybercobra (talk) 11:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per CyberCobra. Joe Chill (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable to me.--Pookeo9 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - looks notable to me...--Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 17:00, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, although the how-to sections may need to be trimmed. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've actually used this product (though it was years ago) on the basis of an online review, CNet IIRC. Looks like someone else linked the review above. Sufficiently notable to warrant inclusion. --ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 18:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This strongly illustrates the problematic nature of the concept of "notability", which is not Wikipedia policy. Of course if someone refers to "GMail drive" you would want to go to Wikipedia precisely because it can provide verifiable and neutral information. The old and long-forgotten principle of mergism best exemplifies the solution to concerns about "notability". The principle of opportunistic use of public storage is an old and well established one. Ceefax coopted the spare scan lines broadcast while the television tube reset the scan beam to the top of the screen. Some of the earliest computer memories--Williams tubes--exploited the memory effect of the long-persistence phosphor surface of cathode ray tubes originally developed for wartime radar screens. Steganography uses the informational redundancy in picture files to store information (with the purpose of concealment). And here we have a well documented example of such co-option for the purpose of information storage. ----TS 21:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joe Chill. Upon first glance at the article my reaction was to suggest deletion (there is no solid third party referencing there) but the ZDnet Asia reprint and other sources look good -- they just need to be added to the body of the article. JBsupreme (talk) 18:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GmailFS

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

Unnotable GMail hack. No significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Prod removed by random IP with not of "rm PROD - lots of ghits, several gnews hits" however, an actual check shows none except for a single non-English one that looks like a blog. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 10:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Slashdot, [94], [95] --Cybercobra (talk) 11:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What makes linuxreviews and technie-buzz reliable? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Cybercobra. Joe Chill (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it very funny that you consider the New York Times [96] a useless source. It also has coverage in several books... from people like ORA [97] . 76.66.197.2 (talk) 05:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "GmailFS" in passing in reference to another software, certainly not significant coverage. The book results, however, are more interesting. Be nice if some of this discovered notability were actually added to the article though that rarely seems to be the result of an AfD. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:08, 16 November 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. JForget 00:13, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Interscope-Geffen-A&M artists

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

Delete. Interscope Records, Geffen Records and A&M Records each have their own lists of artists. All three labels are under the IGA umbrella, but operate as their own respective entities. This list that combines all of the artists from all three labels is extremely convoluted, messy and furthermore unnecessary since - again - they all have their own respective lists. It's best to keep them all seperated for clarity and neatness. -- (talk) - The Real One Returns 06:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article is simply not needed Alan - talk 05:38, 16 November 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 arguments based on a lack of secondary sources show a clear consensus to delete. Kevin (talk) 23:30, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rusty Baker

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

Non-notable race car driver. Speedy and Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 04:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I'm having a very hard time finding sources for this article. Notability seems to be asserted in the article, but Google searches aren't really turning up anything for this particular Rusty Baker. There's plenty of coverage of other individuals named Rusty Baker, however. In any case, I'm wondering whether notability might be established from offline sources, since Baker apparently hasn't raced since 2005 – so maybe his prime was back during the 1990s. Anyway, in its present state, this article fails WP:BIO and WP:V, hence my vote for deletion. If anyone can find reliable sources established the subject's notability, I will switch my vote to keep. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added some pertinent information that I have learned Rusty's stepson, Keegan. Some of his statistics are on Bronson Motor Speedway's website. Unfortunatly, the site is currently unaccessable. Once whatever glitch is going on with the site is fixed, I will add all information I can find on their. I will continue to gather more offline information in the meantime in an attempt to make the article more relevant. Unfortunatly, like most successful short track drivers, Rusty's career wins are impossible to count. He did not keep track of every race he won and he gave away most of his trophies in Victory Lane. He now has less than 100 left. Stats that can be tracked, however, are his ASA and Hooters Pro Cup Series races. I will be adding those soon. Online sources are difficult to find, but I will continue searching for more. --Johncoracing48 (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of notability. Information obtained from non-published sources, such as private communication with his stepson, certainly does not establish notability. Adding more information and statistics about Baker is not the point: the point is to add reliable sources for the information we already have. I have spent some time searching, and can find no evidence at all that Baker comes anywhere near satisfying Wikipedia:Notability (people): in fact I can't find anything about him at all. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said before James, the website that has citations about his career is currently unavailable. I said this earlier in my last entry. If you would have read it, you wouldn't have wasted so much time searching for what is not currently their. I suggest you doing so in the future. Anyway, I have been speaking to the USAR Pro Cup Series for an official compilation of his stats in that series. I'm also working on a few other notable sources but I need more time!--Johncoracing48 (talk) 21:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one !vote per poster, please. Further remarks should be labelled Comment. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One thing that concerns me is how notable the racing itself was. If that can be shown for the benefit of those of us who think speedway is for motorbikes (and whose only experience of it is patching up kids who've fallen off...), things will have moved on a bit. Reliable sources still need to be posted for Baker's sucess, too. Peridon (talk) 22:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I say we should let this article stand. The gentleman defending this article seems to have a plan for building this article into a respectable article via citations. I have searched for this Bronson Motor Speedway he speaks of and he is right, the website is currently unavailable. I believe that the article should stand. End this discussion and wait for him to produce citations and then reevaluate it's relevance.--Face the ace (talk) 02:31, 21 November 2009 (UTC) — Face the ace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment I have added a referance to BAKERacing's History page on their website. It states many of the things mentioned in the article. This will have to do for now.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 04:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm afraid an 'in-house' site doesn't count towards notability. Nor do blogs, forums or Wikipedia itself even... Peridon (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSo you're discrediting the only primary source that's currently available?This is no different then getting imformation about a Sprint Cup driver from his team's site. That's allowed, is it not?--Johncoracing48 (talk) 17:20, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not discrediting it - what we need is third party sources to confirm it. Neutral sources. Sources that aren't editable or addable to. Anyone can create a website and claim anything. Getting information from such a site is one thing. It can be challenged - provided the challenger either adds a 'citation required' or provides a reference for their view of things. Using it to establish notability is against Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you don't like the way Wikipedia works, then you are quite free to start your own encyclopaedia. Peridon (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would add (as one who spends time monitoring the input of new accounts) that these policies are needed. If you saw the number of articles that say nothing much more than 'Shaun is awesome!!!!!!!' or the equivalent, or which are pure advertising material, or which are (sometimes well constructed) hoaxes, you would understand. Peridon (talk) 22:13, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand. I apolgize for losing my temper there. I'm kust having trouble finding third party sources. As I have said before, the site we can use as a third party source is currently unavailable. I'm just frustrated because I can't access it and time is running out.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 22:34, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can recreate the article when evidence comes to hand, or the article can be userfied (transferred back to your user space) until such time, or there now appears to be something called the incubator where things can be stored outside the main encyclopaedia space. Ask an admin person about these choices if you need more info. (We are here to help people - if they want to be helped. Some just go batting on. I'd rather see an article saved than deleted. Sometimes calling for deletion brings to light stuff that had been overlooked before.) Peridon (talk) 22:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok thanks.--Johncoracing48 (talk) 23:30, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of any coverage in reliable sources. This topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Furthermore, this is the biography of a living person, so the fact that it has no sources means that it should be deleted. Cunard (talk) 01:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that Johncoracing48 is working on correct sources. I agree with Face the ace: we should let him have the time for the sources to fix themselves. We shouldn't delete this article jsut because of a glitch out of the author's control. It's obvious that at least one reliable source is in the works. --Kegz15 (talk) 01:55, 22 November 2009 (UTC) — Kegz15 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I do not see any reliable sources in the article. Please explain link to the source that you are referring to. Cunard (talk) 01:57, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that Johncoracing48 is doing everything he can do to get this information and I have checked to find out if the bakeracing@yolasite.com is the official site of BAKERacing and have dtermined it is. I also feel that if there are any other thrid paties out there He will find them and make them links and show Rusty Baker's impact on the sport. I personally have been a fan of Rusty's in more than one way since I was born and he is still talked about all over the state of Fl. as one of the great short track racers of Florida. If we give Johncoracing48 more time I'm sure he will get the information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingtut601 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed a point here. No-one disputes that the bakeracing site is official. That's precisely why it isn't valid by Wikipedia rules as a reliable reference. Please see my chat above with Johncoracing48 about the need for third party refs - and what can be done until they come up all bright eyed and bushy tailed. Peridon (talk) 12:19, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete as non-notable athlete according to WP:ATH and no reliable sources per WP:RS. USARacing (formerly Hooters Pro Cup) and ASA are neither professional level nor the highest level of amateur racing, they are both regional semipros. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 03:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Every driver in each of those series begs to differ with you Chuck. Regardless of what level of professionalism you believe it to be, you muss the point. We're not trying to make him a racing superstar, having raced in all the top levels of racing. He is relevant because of the affect he had on people and the sheer amount of success he had in his as you say "level" of racing. We view him as a Buzzie Reutimann rather than a Richard Petty. By the way, you have elicited my interest. What is the highest level of amatuer racing and what is the lowest level of professional racing?

Note to all new account holders posting here Will you please read the relevant policies on notability, and also take note that however good a job Johncoracing48 is doing, it's not helped by you saying to keep the article because you've heard of Baker. Johncoracing48 has listened to us, and is trying his best. If the others would try to find some suitable references (see above for indications of what is required), then please let us have them. Until, you're just wasting time. Peridon (talk) 18:45, 22 November 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 deletion (WP:SNOW). -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Magic pen (software)

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

Deliberately created by someone at WP:NEWT for some sort of experiment. Speedy declined. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 04:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable software. I can't find any reliable sources that discuss this in any detail. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if this was created to prove a point I'd admonish the user.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources to indicate notability. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, admonish, and create a CSD category for software already Please? Miami33139 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree totally with Miami. ╟─Treasury Tag►constabulary─╢ 08:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Comment; this is rubbish and I don't at all care that it's a test article, but for POV/COI issues I can't say any weight should be given to my opinion. A7 qualifies in this example because it is 100% web content and now a stand-alone piece of software, so even though the article was a trap on the technicality it was software wasn't researched by the author? ~~Great, author could fit into the NEWT investigation hunt... patrols that possibly don't research the subjects they mark for CSD and make a subjective decision. How does this not scare off patrols?~~ ...Scratch that. I entirely garbled together the 3 admins that have been around in this in some way and missed how this article played out. My fault, and sorry for any confusion. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 11:21, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 13:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Mystery Case Files: Huntsville. The creating user has redirected it to Mystery Case Files: Huntsville. Coffee // have a cup // ark // 06:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Huntsville (game)

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

Completely non-notable, unsourced, unwiki'ed, one sentence stub. I already CSDed this and promptly had it undeleted. Staxringold _talk^contribs 04:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is basically devoid of information. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No information, which isn't surprising given that the game seems to be utterly non-notable. --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Beyond that, though, there seems to be a genuine problem in that books, software, etc. currently aren't given a criteria for speedy deletion in the same realm as speedy deletion criteria A7. WP needs to formally introduce either a revision to A7 or a need criteria entirely that covers software, books, etc. with no credible claim to notability.DJBullfish 05:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Crossmr (talk) 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Folks, the article is already at Mystery Case Files: Huntsville. We should just redirect it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:49, 15 November 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. Nominator's reason was not valid but the delete arguments, based on searches by several users which have failed to establish notability, are stronger than the keeps. JohnCD (talk) 17:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AirwaySim

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

Per the consensus at Airwaysim, which was deleted 22:20 2 May 2009 by User:Mentifisto under A7. This article has been opened again under a new name, thus it should be deleted. 203.218.190.46 (talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's rationale does not make sense. The deletion of Airwaysim was a speedy deletion and does not represent any kind of consensus. It was a judgment by a single administrator that the Airwaysim article did not include any indication of importance; it was not a judgment about the intrinsic notability of the topic. The current AirwaySim article, by contrast, is reasonably well sourced and appears to reference coverage from multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject (as required by our notability guideline). Furthermore, the article was created through the articles-for-creation process, meaning that it was already scrutinized by one or more experienced editors who judged the article worthy. —Caesura ^(t) 17:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Is the one review used as a reference enough to satisfy WP:N and WP:V? I've tried looking for other references, but that one is all I can find. Heavyweight Gamer (talk) 20:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand the nominator's rationale, but we can at least examine the article whilst it's here. This is not "reasonably well sourced." The FlightSimX.com and FlightSim.com sources are basically press releases; AirwaySim.com is a primary source, and TeenCastic is far from a reliable source (their "About" page still shows the default web software blurb). Google News, etc, isn't bringing anything viable up. So unless there's a specialist simulation magazine out there that's given it some coverage, this does not meet the notability threshold. Marasmusine (talk) 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a valid entry. There is no reason that through editing it cannot reach the standards of Wikipedia.Kazari (talk) 18:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak delete I can't find significant reliable sources that aren't press releases. Can anyone else? The one review is fairly lacking IMO though if there were one good source to go with it, I'd change to keep. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some of you need to get a life. Nothing wrong with this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonesyuk9 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC) — Jonesyuk9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Strong Delete The article is obviously just a method of advertising for the company to gain more brand awareness (tagged as advertisment already, Notability guidelines state Wikipedia is not for self promotion and indiscriminate publicity). There are no other sources except for the website's own and other third-party ones mentioned above. Unlike Airliners.net or FlyerTalk, for example, it does not offer anything else worth noting such as a forum for aviation enthusiasts. It is also probably made by the owner, Sami Puro, as tracing User:83.145.237.108, I find that it originates from Finland also. The same applies to User:Airwaysim, that created Airwaysim. Just my view. 218.103.156.180 (talk) 10:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regarding User:Jonesyuk9's comment, it is totally without any backing. See [98] for JonesyUK (AirwaySim forum).218.103.156.180 (talk) 10:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First of all, the rationale of the nominator is HUGELY incorrect. The article is NOT the "same" article was here about a year ago and deleted for some reason.

Then secondly the comments made by 218.103.156.180 (aka toyotaboy95) are also HUGELY incorrect and I object these kind of assumptions what he makes. First of all it is not just random aviation site like FlyerTalk, he has probably misunderstood the whole concept of that site or is just otherwise ignorant. The article is about an MMOG which Wiki has dozens of others too, even of some more minor games than this I see.

The previous article under title Airwaysim was indeed created by an user with a same username, but I can assure you 100% that it was NOT made by the site administration, ie. me, or anyone associated to the site as I personally investigated this why someone is trying to do Wikipedia things in "our name", and the username of that user was then changed as per my request even.

And neither is this article made by us (for the record the software originates from Finland and has a large userbase here). I did make an edit to this article yesterday which I believe is allowed still. But what he is talking is fully made up things so better disregard that. I wonder what he has against this article or website as he is an user of the site too - he himself tagged the article as an ad, and now uses it as an deletion rationale.

Also I agree that the comment of JonesyUK9 in this talk page is inappropriate.

For the sources & verifiability, I have been informed that a flight simulation site is working on a review / article of some sort of this project and when it comes out I will add it to the list of sources here, and you wikipedians can then further edit the article to make it better. But that's all I have add to this discussion, I wanted to clear some of these false accusations - please continue :) ~~S.Puro / admin of the site in question, newbie Wiki user. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.77.188.157 (talk) 12:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete per Marasmusine, this article has not cleared the notability hurdle through having non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. In plain English: Wikipedia articles about video games are built from sources like reviews, and those reviews etc. have to be of a certain quality (see reliable sources). If they aren't available, there's no basis for an article. The sources are glorified press-releases and a review from Joe Bloggs' blog, that doesn't cut it, and I can't find anything better from a web search. No prejudice against recreation should a few quality reviews appear. Someone another 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're here, doesn't that explanation (BTW, thanks for taking the time to make it for the anons) sound like it could apply equally to verifiability? The long and short of V is that the word of an open wiki isn't worth much, and neither are our articles if we can't give a proper answer to the question "says who?" I've begun to suspect that N is often brandished in situations where V would be enough. Appealing to the latter could save WP some drama: V's a universal cornerstone of the project, N's a cudgel. --Kiz o r 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Technically it could in this instance, though if the press releases were hosted on a more reliable site then we'd have to go back to notability anyway. I'm certain that I'm guilty of defaulting to notability when verifiability is a more pressing issue, but will continue to try and keep WP:V in mind. Notability is given a bum rap and made out to be some frippery when it's actually as practical as a hammer or screwdriver. It's an extension of verifiability and neutrality, that WP is an encyclopedia not a database, and that editors cannot generate original research to make articles resemble encyclopedia material. I love video games and would like to see every game eligible for an article to have one (whether it's an MMOG, a retrogame, a flash-game, whatever), but I know from hard experience that if it doesn't pass the notability standard then it's never going to be a proper article no matter how much time is spent on it. Someone another 13:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This article should be deleted because it fails Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Notability in that it has not received coverage in secondary, reputable reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 01:42, 22 November 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) 00:05, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser Makes a Movie

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

I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 04:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:FILMNOT. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notability not established.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Units of information. JForget 00:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brontobyte

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

Not notable and barely verifiable. I can find no reliable sources treating the term in any depth, only some one-off uses of the term. Cybercobra (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- Cybercobra (talk) 03:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Units of information. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. JIP | Talk 18:29, 15 November 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) 00:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

San Miguel Premium Internacional

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

Delete. Non-notable product that is not even worthy of a redirect. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this beer. Joe Chill (talk) 15:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 18:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shoe City

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

Delete. Cannot really be termed ntable according to WP:CORP. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was listed for speedy deletetion, and the speedy tag was removed by another admin, with the explanation "removed speedy, removed promotional content, cleaned up; this company appears notable per [99]" . I do not think that's a good search-- the references that link turn up are almost all non-specific--the name is not at all uncommon & it also k=gets various phrases. For the one in the article, there's nothing but utterly routine local announcements DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. There are some sources at a better link, here, but they aren't of the depth that would allow Shoe City to pass the notability guidelines. Cunard (talk) 21:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:59, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Telephone pictionary

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

Something made up one day, or one boring evening. WuhWuzDat 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:MADEUP. Joe Chill (talk) 03:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - whilst I don't think it was "made up one day", I can't find any reliable sources to grant it notability. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 14:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources and quite possibly made up, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Achda Fluminense

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

Unreferenced article about a non-notable football club... fails WP:FOOTYN and WP:V... Also, possibly a hoax, as information is regularly changed by the creator (and only editor)... infobox now lists information copied from Arsenal FC... Adolphus79 (talk) 19:20, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Excluding Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors, a Google search returns no substantial results. I concur with the nominator that this is likely a hoax. Cunard (talk) 23:47, 7 November 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 01:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment trying a speedy hoax. If speedy declined, Mega Delete. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Black Tower Temptation (film)

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

Non-notable movie - no secondary sources in Google or GNews. ~~Half the article is copied and pasted from the Twilight article.~~ - This has been fixed, but still no coverage in WP:RS. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 19:01, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 20:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. A browse through the results on Google returns no indication that this film passes Wikipedia:Notability (films). Cunard (talk) 00:08, 15 November 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 01:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this film. Joe Chill (talk) 01:28, 15 November 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 all (effectively no consensus default to Keep) except merge the two mentioned in this close. I'm not sure what's happening here. ALL of these songs (bar Do You Want To, which was a double A-side with Can't Hang and should therefore share an article - which I've done), were top 50 Billboard hits. Indeed, five of them were Top 10 hits - WP:MUSIC#SONGS is quite clear here that such songs are notable. Thus I had to interpret one editor's Delete !vote as an actual Keep, as he said that the charting songs should stay. The three which achieved lower charting positions may be of dubious independent notability, but that's an editorial decision to redirect to the parent album. Black Kite 00:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Hang

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

Recommending deletion or merging per WP:NSONG. These articles could conceivably be merged into Xscape (band), Xscape discography, articles about the album in which each single appears, or even a new article like Xscape singles. Looking for a ruling on notability of these individual songs, and whether they each deserve their own individual article. For most of these, the only GHits are lyrics pages. SnottyWong talk 13:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of articles nominated:

Can't Hang -> Can't Hang / Do You Want To
Love on My Mind -> Keep (#46 Billboard)
Feels So Good (Xscape song) -> Keep (#34 Billboard)
Do You Want To (Xscape song) -> Redirect to Can't Hang / Do You Want To
Understanding (song) -> Keep (#8 Billboard)
Just Kickin' It -> Keep (#2 Billboard)
Who Can I Run To -> Keep (#8 Billboard)
The Arms of the One Who Loves You -> Keep (#7 Billboard)
My Little Secret -> Keep (#9 Billboard)

Delete - There's not enough here to warrant a separate article. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:34, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I went ahead and expanded "Just Kickin' It". Gongshow ^Talk 21:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I added to "Understanding (song)" as well. Gongshow ^Talk 08:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all except JKI and Understanding as those songs did chart. Nate • (chatter) 04:19, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or nominate separately. The Arms of the One Who Loves You was a charted hit and is most definitely notable in its own right. Pichpich (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tau Malachi

AfDs for this article:

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

Unreferenced; hagiographical; fails to establish notability of either Malachi or his church. Survived previous AfD based on apparent potential for improvement, but then didn't improve. Neon Merlin [100] 06:47, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:26, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete - there are no references in this Biographical article about a living person, and none have been forthcoming since the last AfD. He is not a leader of a notable church, and while he might be a "holy man", that by itself does not confer notability. I can find exactly zero citations in Google news] or in non-self-published books, that is, no reliable sources about this "mystic". I point out that even some sources call him an "elder" in quotes, see Google Books search, as if in denial of his notability. (In other words, he claims to be marginally famous although he is not even that famous.) Also, this is a borderline copyvio of this site, and until that is fixed, I'll argue for speedy deletion under WP:COPYVIO. Bearian (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Actually, if you look back beyond the last month, as you can do by clicking on the "news" link in the "find sources" links at the top of this discussion, you can see that there are some mentions found by Google News. I'm not sure, however, that they are are enough to show notability. For anyone claiming to be a "Gnostic bishop" it would be helpful to see some sources dating from before the publication of The Da Vinci Code, as nearly everyone describing themselves as such is a really a Dan Brown-bandwagonist trying to sell books about mumbo-jumbo rather than a serious religious figure. I note that this subject's books with ISBNs were published in 2004, 2005 and 2006, after The Da Vinci Code's publication in 2003. A strange coincidence, given that he was supposedly the "lineage-holder" since 1983. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:50, 8 November 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 00:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marcus leach

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

Fails WP:PEOPLE. Btilm 04:02, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is a Foreign Expert from the United States of America to the People's Republic of China. And, he has a book written about him: http://www.amazon.com/Cross-X-Staggering-Obstacles-Challenge-Community/dp/0374131945

He also has more than 50 other publications and several apperances on NPR and CNN - all written about him: http://www.pitch.com/2006-06-01/news/the-miseducation-of-marcus-leach/full - http://www.pitch.com/2002-05-30/news/highly-debatable - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6533676 - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6412062 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.116.223 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:36, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:23, 7 November 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 00:57, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guy's 24 years old and a partner at Leach & Associates and has been a "Foreign Expert" in China!!! Is someone winding me up here? Though it seems he may appear in a book, I can see no evidence that this warrants giving him personally sufficient notability. Delete Emeraude (talk) 19:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your analysis of this article is solely about the facts in the article. Have you evaluated the sources that were provided by 69.255.116.223 (talk · contribs)? Cunard (talk) 01:51, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The cites were provided - I vote to allow. Foreign Expert's to the People's Republic of China are notable. I, also, don't think anyone is trying to "wind you up" Emeraude. The combination of a biography (book cited above) written about him from one of the top publishing companies in the world (also cited above)and the diplomatic status make this an easy call. Also, NPR has interviewed him numerous times, I guess they consider him an expert on the subject matters (cited above as well). I know, I'm jealous I wasn't there at 24, but he is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.184.171 (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Marcus Leach passes WP:BIO. There is this article from The Pitch (newspaper). I also found this article from the Boston Globe which verifies that the book Cross-X: The Amazing True Story of How the Most Unlikely Team From the Most Unlikely of Places Overcame Staggering Obstacles at Home and at School to Challenge the Debate Community on Race, Power, and Education provides significant coverage about his life. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 22 November 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. JForget 22:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Jeer

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

No substantive assertion of notability: which books did he write, and why should we care? I found only 6 Google hits with quotes. Chutznik (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:23, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the article, it seems likely that sources would be pre-internet and/or not in English. Edward321 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:22, 7 November 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 00:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Without sources provided or even identified (in any language), we don't have enough information here to support an article, much less a biography of a living person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:51, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No evidence of notability or even of satisfying WP:V in terms of sources for the basic biographical data mentioned in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 01:41, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Justification of Terrorism in Islam

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

Reads a bit like an essay. Not likely to become neutral. Unionhawk ^Talk ^E-mail ^Review 19:46, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 19:48, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 12:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - POV essay, even the title uses the subjective term "terrorism" to describe several kinds of militant or military action listed in the article; original research per WP:NOR with large amounts of synthesis per WP:SYNTHESIS. MuffledThud (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this be improved to prevent deletion? How to add a NPOV?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs) 14:57, 7 November 2009
~~Keep seems like there are quite a bit of sources that could be used here. AFD is not a cleanup.~~ Delete There's too many problems here. Article isn't going to be saved anyway. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:21, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed the npov template as there is no talk page to it to justify the template. Also I don't see any NPOV issues here. The article just state facts and quotes. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:24, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just restored the POV tag, and added a few more. It's one thing to criticize Muhammad for allowing the accidental killing of children, but it's quite another to then call accidental killings "terrorism". Opinions on terrorism of a tiny minority of Muslims are also cited here, such as quotes from Osama Bin Laden, Omar Bakri, with the implication in the title that since they call themselves Muslims, then "Islam" is justifying terrorism. Zakir Naik is clearly mocking the use of the word "terrorist", arguing that " A policeman is a terrorist for the robber.", but the article then conflates the two senses used of the word to imply that Naik supports terrorism in the same way that Bin Laden does. MuffledThud (talk) 02:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just making myself clear, I know Islam (as a religion) and Muslims (as people) are peaceful and aren't terrorists, and that a select few spoil it for others. Just saying it so that people don't think that I'm a stereotype. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. am sure we can edit this and ad a NPV. also this has some nice info. and has got all the sourcing.i will try edit improve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Admit-the-truth (talk • contribs)
Delete. Pretty severe POV and Essay issues. The sourcing is also pretty bad. There might be an entry in this topic somewhere, but it looks nothing like this. Hairhorn (talk) 23:40, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Would like to remind people here that AFD is not a cleanup TheWeakWilled (T * G) 23:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i think all that needs to be changed is the title and the "way its written" not sourcing. I think the title should be changed. to "justifcation of Islamic Terrorism" or terrorist juistifcation of terrorism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.18.223.124 (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes it has already been noted above that AFD is not a cleanup. But cleanup is not all that's required here, as has also already been noted above. I can find no sources cited here that don't already exists in Islamic terrorism (which is also heavily tagged for bias, inaccuracy and WP:NOR) and Justification for terrorism, which is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Justification for terrorism following these recent edits by User:Admit-the-truth (creator of this article) and User:86.18.223.124, who seem to have unusually similar writing styles and article interests. Note recent comment by User:86.18.223.124: [101]: "damn thought i wud get away with it...", after getting caught trying to delete this AFD listing from the log. This looks an awful lot like defensive forking of bad edits to a new article. MuffledThud (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep why should this be deleted, it is because some people might find it offensive i bet? If it gets deleted for that reason i really dont no what to say--188.221.108.172 (talk) 20:33, 14 November 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, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep contains verifiable sources--86.18.223.124 (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pencil Full Of Lead

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

possibly fails wikipedia notability. little context, multiple referances for single item. Alankc (talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [102], [103], [104], [105],[106], [107], and [108]. Joe Chill (talk) 01:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The coverage isn't too impressive but it's a top 20 hit in the UK.--Michig (talk) 08:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral/Merge. WP:NSONG says "Songs that have been ranked on national ... charts ... are probably notable" (emphasis added), and then goes on to recommend that "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist". The chart success of the song is enough to ensure notability for Paolo Nutini (along with his other achievements), but I'm not sure that this particular song merits its own article. Tevildo (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The BBC, Glasswerk, FemaleFirst, and Angry Ape references are good enough to pass WP:NSONGS. Gongshow ^Talk 07:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.WP:NSONGS. The preceding comment was added by MortonFC66 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log)
Please sign your comments correctly. That isn't the first example of an incorrect signature. If you're having some particular difficulty in signing your comments then let us know and we can work towards a solution. Adambro (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More coverage here.--Michig (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looks notable based on what I'm seeing. Reach Out to the Truth 19:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:SONGS. Ironholds (talk) 19:42, 21 November 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. JForget 00:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garage Voice

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

Non-notable band. A Google News Archive search returns 26 results; however, most of them are from Northwest Christian Music, which is not an independent, neutral reliable source. An example of Northwest Christian Music's non-neutrality is seen in this link: We are so excited about their new album. The rest of this article, as well as the other articles from Northwest Christian Music, is written like a press release. Google News Archive also returns this article from The Spokesman-Review; however, it is a passing mention.

Garage Voice contains an interview from fishtrain.com; however, the interview does not qualify as significant coverage per WP:BAND because nearly all of the information in the interview is the band talking members about themselves. This interview states: "I’m here with Garage Voice, an up-and-coming band, just back from their nation-wide tour." An "up-and-coming band" is not notable, and there are no reliable sources that cover this band's "nation-wide tour".

If reliable sources can be found about this band, I will withdraw this AfD nomination. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here are related AfDs for the band's albums; these AfDs were created on 1 November 2009 by Alan Liefting (talk · contribs):
1. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Those Who Have Ears Hear
2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joyeux Anniversary
3. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Let Us Reconcile. Cunard (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If a band releases 2+ albums on a major label, the band is considered notable. Well, Garage Voice has released 5 on a major label. --30daysinAK (talk) 01:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Upbeat Child Records is not considered a major label. Delete. Good eye, Cunard. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No significant coverage found in reliable sources.--Michig (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Adventures of Josiah Jones

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

And Dawson Vosburg

I don't see reliable coverage of this book, or the author Cynof Gavuf 12:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Non-notable author and his self-published book. The book not only fails all of the criteria at WP:BK, the fact that it's self-published is also a strike against it. The author fails the criteria laid out at WP:AUTHOR. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both: I can't find significant coverage for the author. Joe Chill (talk) 03:39, 15 November 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 per consensus

Travis Bryant

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

Other than being a fashion model, i have not seen why this person meets notability Cynof Gavuf 12:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this model. Joe Chill (talk) 13:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. The sources in the article are unreliable because they are from blogs, such as Blogspot. The subject of this article fails Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 02:07, 22 November 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. An element of original research, but I don't see how the individual items don't fail WP:NOT#NEWS anyway. Black Kite 00:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aerial combat engagements between Cyprus and Turkey

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

Not notable, misleading title (no combat occurred), orphaned article Socrates2008 (Talk) 12:17, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "aerial incidents" Two events reach borderline notability for having a separate article at best. Collect (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename per Collect. I'm unconvinced that these incidents fail WP:N. That said, "combat" did not occur, so renaming is very appropriate. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Putting incidents together to create an article is WP:Original research. Sorry to be so blunt, but I have nothing much more to say. Except that if the incidents are notable each should have its own article. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the topic as such does not meet the notability requirements, and the incidents by themselves are also not notable. --Lambiam 21:34, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Extreme Networks. Black Kite 00:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ExtremeWare

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

No reliable 3rd party sources to indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t13:26z 13:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ExtremeXOS (as a history or precursor section), Extreme Networks (as a minor products section), or VxWorks (as a based-on products section). This is not a standalone article. Miami33139 (talk) 17:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Extreme Networks, which is the best target for a merge. Cunard (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chicane discography. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Autumn Tactics

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

doesn't seem notable, one referance, no context, waste of space, wouild be better in main article Alankc (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Chicane (recording artist). I can't find significant coverage for this song. Joe Chill (talk) 13:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 13:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to artist/discography. --Michig (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chicane discography. Verifiable, but there isn't enough content (and possibly not enough coverage either) for a separate article. snigbrook (talk) 23:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chicane discography, which is a more suitable target than Chicane (recording artist). Cunard (talk) 02:13, 22 November 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 Megalomania. Black Kite 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megalomaniac paranoia

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

Megalomaniac paranoia is the colloqual name for somebody with a combination of narcissistic personality disorder and paranoid personality disorder. "Megalomaniac paranoia" is not defined anywhere medically, such as in the DSM or ICD. The possibilities of various personality disorder combinations are covered in the individual personality disorder articles anyway. The diagnoses given of famous people having "megalomaniac paranoia" are not authoritative even if "megalomaniac paranoia" was a medically recognized term. The whole article is completely flaky pseudo science and baloney. "Megalomaniac paranoia" is a non scientific colloquial expression. The reference to Dementia praecox is a red herring, "Dementia praecox" is an obsolete medical term anyway.--Penbat (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If "megalomaniac paranoia" was a medically recognized term, which now is considered obsolete, than it's interesting to cover the history and supposed dismissal of this term, not to delete the article. Can you mention sources to add to the article?--Sum (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Theoretically it could be a keep if it was a tightly focused article on the history of "megalomaniac paranoia". I dont have any sources for this and i think at present the article is completely misleading. I think that historically "megalomaniac paranoia" has been associated with schizophrenia and paranoia but these days it would be considered a mix of paranoia and narcissism (narcissism being a modern concept). Megalomania has similar issues and is a historical condition but it couldnt be deleted as it is still widely used as a colloquial word. --Penbat (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this link is where the idea that "megalomania is discussed in DSM-IV" came from. Certainly "grandiosity" is mentioned in DSM-IV as a symptom of various disorders. It is ambiguous whether the author is saying that the word "megalomania" actually appears in DSM-IV or if he is just providing a synonym for grandiosity. I would be surprised if "megalomania" appeared anywhere in DSM-IV and if it did it would just be as another word for grandiosity as a symptom of various disorders and certainly not as a defined disorder. This supports the idas that "megalomania" should be merged with the Grandiose delusions article with "megalomania" as a redirect to Grandiose delusions. There is no reference to megalomania in DSM-IV Codes which lists the names of all the DSM mental disorders.--Penbat (talk) 16:59, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have access to editions of the DSM. Do you know if it discusses the combination of narcissism/grandiose with paranoia?--Sum (talk) 18:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some DSM-IV Diagnostic Criteria text is in Wikipedia. Grandiose Type is mentioned as a subtype of delusional disorder (see Delusional_disorder#Types). Grandiosity is also as an important feature of Narcissistic personality disorder see Narcissistic_personality_disorder#Diagnostic_criteria_.28DSM-IV-TR_.3D_301.81.29. There is a separate persecutory subtype for delusional disorder and combinations of disorders such as paranoia and narcissism are quite possible but there is no single combined grandiose and paranoid disorder in DSM-IV. --Penbat (talk) 19:53, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am still in favour of deletion. I dont want to put words into Sums mouth but he is not exactly strongly advocating keeping. --Penbat (talk) 17:21, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing wrong with having more people involved, but from the discussion side, i dont think there is much to be said to justify keeping the article unless somebody can find a good source that would describe paranoid megalomania as a historical illness. The material currently in the article is completely misleading.--Penbat (talk) 07:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the article should be kept. The expression "Megalomaniac paranoia" has been used multiple times, at least in the past, so it's interesting to have an article which documents it and puts it into context. In the discussion so far I've only seen arguments for the improvement of the article, not its removal.--Sum (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It could be categorised as "Category:Obsolete medical terms" like dementia praecox and the text needs reorienting as an obsolete historical illness. As there is very little useful info of this nature I am aware of, it will end up very short, maybe 2 paras instead of 4. The entire text could be as short as 2 sentences, one of them just saying that Thomas Pynchon used the expression in one of his books.--Penbat (talk) 20:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently short but certainly more sources exists on the subject. We just have to wait that over time more users will come and add them, as naturally happens in Wikipedia. Is there any rush?--Sum (talk) 22:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name a couple of those sources that "certainly" exist? Optimistic handwaving isn't sufficient for an AfD discussion. If we can't identify actual high-quality reliable sources, then we have to let the article go. (Articles can be re-created in the future if someone actually finds sources.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have done quite a lot of Google trawling and apparently Freud and Jung discussed "megalomania" (in the sense of grandiosity and omnipotence) but have found next to nothing more recent by any psychologist. These days in psychology, "megalomania" is just referred to as "grandiosity" which is just a symptom of several diverse psychiatric disorders. I have drawn a complete blank on the use of "megalomaniac paranoia" by any psychologist. --Penbat (talk) 19:49, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Right i have trimmed and refocused Megalomaniac paranoia. If you are happy with it, I will cancel this deletion request. --Penbat (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is obsolete because there is no evidence it has ever been even mentioned in any DSM. Rather than have crap in this article i would prefer it if it was deleted. --Penbat (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any relevant cited content into the megalomania article. A symptom of a condition almost always does not reach the threshold of notability.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense to me. It can also be argued that megalomania should be merged into delusions of grandeur as most of the content is about that anyway. Megalomania is also currently just an alternative name for a symptom (grandiosity) but more notable than Megalomaniac paranoia--Penbat (talk) 14:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Symptom of a condition almost always does not reach the threshold of notability": this is a consideratrion from a medical point of view, on whose validity medical experts may disagree. The subject is not specific to the medical field, but it has also historical and literary relevance.--Sum (talk) 16:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not Sum, first of all I am not a medical doctor, it is a consideration based on WP:COMMONSENSE. It is a poorly referenced article and we can not have lots of stubs of each individual significant symptom of a condition, be it societal, medical, psychological etc.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:10, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a medical article. It's an article on an expression that has been used in history and literature.--Sum (talk) 17:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: Votestacking. It seems to me that posts Help needed on Megalomaniac paranoia (also here) by Penbat qualifies as Votestacking for his deletion request. Literaturegeek has joined the vote as a result.--Sum (talk) 17:07, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is appropriate to post in wiki projects. Votestacking is contacting individual editors who you know or think will vote in a specific direction. I am going to assume good faith for the moment that you do not understand wikipedia policies and guidelines and have not read them.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It qualifies as votestacking because it is limited to medical wikiprojects, whose users are more likely to delete it because Megalomaniac paranoia is not addressed by current medical literature. And the way in which is formulated, it explicitly asks for "help" for his "deletion request". It has also been posted only now instead of at the beginning of the process.--Sum (talk) 17:25, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please back up your claim by citing where in the policy that notifying a Wiki project is vote stacking. Also what is to stop you going to another wiki project which you do not think is biased and asking them?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:31, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I obviously only asked for "help" now because so far it has just been my opinion against yours and it increasingly looked like nobody else would get involved to sway the vote one way or another to reach a resolution. On the project page i simply asked for more opinions. I then said in the next sentence what my view was. There is no way i could have known in advance whether any new opinions would be supportive or not.--Penbat (talk) 19:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful to megalomania, delete rather than redirect the article as not a notable search term, merely two adjectives linked. And I am a doctor. Casliber (talk · contribs) 19:12, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge anything useful per Casliber, and then redirect as an obsolete medical term. Though I am not a doctor. Regards, --—Cyclonenim | Chat 23:28, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Casliber (who is a doctor, but hasn't spotted that 'paranoia' is a noun :D ). There is one quality reference (Domingo) but the full text only seems to be freely available here – in Spanish. My poor Spanish is enough to indicate that Domingo says "For example el delirio megalomaníaco is traditionally considered a symptom ...", but never combines it with la paranoia. This may have value in the Megalomania article, but doesn't support the medical notability of this article. --RexxS (talk) 23:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete the page as a sum of parts. Megalomania and paranoia has to be a really tiny set. Kind of like influenza and gout: one person can have both at the same time, but that doesn't make the combination a discrete medical condition. Thomas Pynchon is a world class writer in part because he can write nonsense that takes on a reality of its own. No doubt he could describe a compelling gouty influenza. If there is any article lurking here, it is about Pynchon's concept of a "paranoid megalomaniac", but that would be a topic for a comp lit essay, not an encyclopedia, because at this point I doubt there exists even one reliable secondary source. --Una Smith (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waki OPM Awards

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

Delete. Non-notable music award. User234 (talk) 08:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Page does not indicate notability. Also, the AfD notice was taken off the page pretty soon after it was added and hasn't been on until I re-added it a few minutes ago. SKS (talk) 03:33, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuadV

AfDs for this article:

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

Can't find newspapers articles about it Cynof Gavuf 12:03, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:48, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage out there. A press releases, mostly: [109][110], etc. Marasmusine (talk) 13:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 04:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no coverage, suspect WP:ADVERT. One user had all but two edits, one of which is the AFD entry. --Teancum (talk) 12:50, 16 November 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. All the Keep votes are from IPs locating to the same area (indeed, two are the same one) and effectively amount to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. No notability has been shown per the Delete comments. Black Kite 23:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cppcheck

(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) 03:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Static code analysis isn't that "hot" in mainstream media, so getting "significant" coverage is nearly impossible. Just look at some other Wikipedia articles about tools that do similar job at List_of_tools_for_static_code_analysis. Do they have coverage? Perhaps 2 or 3 of them have more references than Cppcheck. So why is Cppcheck the only one considered for deletion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 22:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Joe Chill (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read it. Did you? It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes.". I'm not arguing that Cppcheck should be kept, because similar articles have been kept, I'm only asking for consistency. So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck the only one, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 07:19, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The wikipedia definition of "significant coverage" is met by the software website (already referenced SF documentation) covering the initial claims of this article. Internal output from the tool itself forms similar coverage for the statements of output. As commented above the coverage of this tool is small, due to the nature of the industry to which it applies. As one of the extremely few freely available static analysis tools its importance is vastly more than its available references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.166.233 (talk) 12:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per 60.234.166.233's keep argument. Its own website is definitely not viable for evidence of notability. If there's no independent coverage of it, WP:V WP:N fail. Even if that's the nature of the topic, that doesn't mean "a big fish in a pond that nobody fishes in" doesn't make that fish notable anywhere outside that pond. However, Static code analysis is an article on this general topic that could certainly use some work. That might be a good place to discuss the different tools, and refs for them there could be useful. DMacks (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that the "own website" is only a collection of links to other websites showing the actual evidence. The article has e.g. the claim about 30 bugs in the Linux kernel. Project's website lists links to all these bug reports in the kernel's bug tracking system, so I think there is a valid reference for that claim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and "list of uses" does not satisfy me for notability (in the WP sense). If it really is a generally-regarded-as-useful tool that is notable, then someone will have written about it, possibly highlighting some key places it was used ("popular among Linux kernel developers", "critical for tracking down two notable kernel bugs", etc.) But simple evidence of use is not evidence of notability in the WP sense. It's annoying that niche products that are popular in the niche may not (and maybe not even ever) get an article. An interesting parallel is in WP:NEO, which remarks "Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia." DMacks (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: References for notability are no less than they are for several other articles in the same category. Sparse, QA-C, PC-Lint, LDRA_Testbed, Gendarme, CodeIt.Right, NDepend, ReSharper, DMS_Software_Reengineering_Toolkit, Apparat_(computer_science), Soot_(software), Hammurapi_code_review_tool, PMD_(software), Rough_Auditing_Tool_for_Security just to mention a few that were trivial to spot, probably more if you actually look into the reference lists. Please be consistent about what you delete and what you keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 November 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 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says that "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." So can you please answer, why is the Cppcheck considered for deletion, considering that other similar articles have less references (some don't have any). I already asked this above but didn't get answer for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other articles are here because no one has determined whether or not they are notable. If you believe that any of those articles fails the notability guidelines, you can either prod the articles or nominate them for AfD. Cunard (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the lack of reliable sources. This software fails WP:N. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are rules, but there are also articles who have been in Wikipedia against the rules for years. I don't see why this article should be an exception in this category and be the only one to be deleted. Keep in mind that we are not talking about Star Wars figures or games here. The amount of static code analysis programs is relatively small. If having an own article is not possible, the information could be merged to Static code analysis with other similar tools. But would that grow the size of a single article too big, if code examples and feature lists are added there for every tool. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.220.29.53 (talk) 13:07, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless reliable sources can be found. So far, the only argument that has been advanced in favor of keeping the article is that other bad articles exist on Wikipedia, which I find exceptionally unpersuasive. No one seems to be disputing that the article fails to meet Wikipedia's guidelines, which is the question at hand here. —Caesura ^(t) 18:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Key West High School Alternative Energy Program

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

Program that doesn't have significant coverage in 3rd party sources. Trivial coverage. The only Google News Result ends up to be a 404. No school article to redirect to. User:Heindrekallen seems to be a WP:SPA. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

Delete - turbines have not yet been built. The suggestion that the turbines would be named after Stephen Colbert suggests that this is perhaps a hoax. Racepacket (talk) 01:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sorting/Organizations|list of Organizations-related deletion discussions]]. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. -- –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It did win an award, but it is a local award. Joe Chill (talk) 20:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable school project. Warrah (talk) 21:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article needs references, but the program is mentioned in an EPA report: http://www.epa.gov/Region4/clean_energy/Biodiesel%20Primer%20Final.pdf (starting on page 11). Being the "first public high school 'green' energy program in the state of Florida" would make it notable. The claim needs a source, of course, but I think that it is reasonable to assume that this might be true. Being created by a WP:SPA is not a reason to delete an article. However, WP:COI might be an issue. The article needs cleanup to remove all WP:OR. « D. Trebbien (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm leaning on a slight keep/withdrawal because of that, but it would be nice if we had more than that one source. Also, I was just pointing out the SPA, not using it against the article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Wind turbines are in use at Key West High School. The first one when up Thursday November 12, 2009. I along with about 200 other band, football, soccer, cheerleader, and cross country students were witness to it. It is not a hoax. Since when do local awards not count? And WHEN is it ever non-notable for students to raise wind turbine at their school? Are you guys crazy? Keep this page. I'm certain the page will develop more as time goes on and the situation develops.

The above was written by a WP:SPA User:KWBandConch. Most likely a conflict of interest as well. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And to answer your questions, just saying that you witnessed it doesn't mean anything. I could say that I along with 200 of my bffs witnessed the apocalypse yesterday, but that doesn't mean anything. Local awards don't count on wikipedia per WP:N. And yes, I may be a little psychotic. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was the part about naming it after Colbert a hoax? Racepacket (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Warrah and Joe Chill. GlassCobra 18:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If any of this is notable, merge into the school article. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:32, 21 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tales From The Acoustic Planet, Vol. 3: Africa Sessions

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

This article has no signs of notability. Should it be merged with the author? It doesn't even have a track listing. Btilm 02:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It could be a work-in-progress of someone fleshing out Bela Fleck albums. Give it time. (Fleck himself is notable.) - BalthCat (talk) 18:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep satisfies WP:NALBUM. AFD message re-added to article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks - I didn't notice that. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As the AfD template on the article was removed almost immediately after it was first added, this should be considered the first week of discussion for relisting purposes. Tim Song (talk) 18:30, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:52, 15 November 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. article already exists at Melody of Rhythm JForget 00:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm of Melody

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

Not notable. Might be better off to merge with artist. Btilm 03:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Fleck is notable. This could be a work-in-progress of someone fleshing out Fleck articles. Give it time. - BalthCat (talk) 19:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep both fleck and zakir hussain are highly notable. its just not well done at this point. needs refs, links, etc. whoops, temporary dyslexia, i see the error, delete or redirect to correct article.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 19:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:33, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Hoax/misnaming. Melody of Rhythm is the correct name. Bela Fleck is the shit however. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 01:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per TheWeakWilled. There is an article with the album's correct title, Melody of Rhythm. Gongshow ^Talk 05:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 18:03, 15 November 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. Clear consensus to keep, no !votes for deletion apart from nom. (non-admin closure) @Kate (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cromagnon (band)

AfDs for this article:

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

Notability concerns-- #163/200 songs of the 60s on a low-volume music site. All references given are just to generic database pages; One link to an album review is a review for a different band. WP:MUSIC #5 is NOT met; go to the official ESP-Disk Wiki page or website and it clearly lists one album ever released on their label (requirement 2+). Even if that can be excused or avoided, #5 alone with zero other notability hints I can't accept. Guideline reads "may be notable if...", it's not automatic. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I can be convinced this can be kept, but you've got to offer more notability from a better variety of sources. Passing WP:MUSIC#5 on a technicality at best won't cut it for me in an orphaned article, sorry. The 1-week AfD period is there to allow page improvements, so by all means. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 04:59, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a low volume music site? Also, the review was very clearly a source for the claim that Japanese band Ghost had covered Caledonia on the album which the review is reviewing. I'd also like to add that this article was previously not orphaned (there were at least two articles linking two it, though one has been redirected to another article.)(Albert Mond (talk) 11:33, 8 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Low volume = not particularly something you grab off a newsstand? When notability says 'Major' media source, that's the goal at least. Keep in mind that notable within a community (or music genres does not mean general notability... but I'm not disqualifying that either, by any means. More is just better. Even then, it's only 1 sentence. It'd be hard to convince many people that the only thing even remotely close whatsoever toward a lean into Wikipedia notability standards is one sentence in one article. For links, it just isn't much past WP archives, user pages, talk pages, a few categories. I don't know. Blah. Even I'm getting flustered trying to look like I'm flustered. A little more searching shows they're with Tntrees Records now (as of late 2009), and that isn't exactly setting off a lot of lights. Ug. I'll keep looking later. Anyone is free to edit the article, of course. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

can you explain what you mean about esp-disk? their wiki page lists hundreds of albums released. why are you saying only one was released? Aisha9152 (talk) 04:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He was referring to Cromagnon's releases on ESP, I believe. (Albert Mond (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

keep - i added a reference to julian cope discussing them which anyone who cared to google could easily find. i think this band is clearly notable and don't understand why this is being renominated, as apparently in the first nomination there was only one delete vote, who was the person who nominated it. Aisha9152 (talk) 06:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus can change, there weren't many opinions given, and the keeps all relied on part of the policy that was factually incorrect in the article. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That quote doesn't so much; just because one person notable enough to have a Wikipedia author for music content says one thing about the band still isn't at all notability. If you look at that site, said writer has 4 total reviews. That doesn't count as a reliable source of reviews. Even if an A+ known name says something in praise of a band doesn't make it notable. Sorry. ♪ daTheisen (talk) 22:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it looks like the original deletion thing was cross posted to a music notification thing, is there a reason you didnt do it this time? Aisha9152 (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that both releases are listed as having been released by "ESP-Disk" on AllMusic. AllMusic, from my experience, gets label info from distribution, as opposed to editors writing it in, so it was most likely released on ESP. (Albert Mond (talk) 09:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep- They have general notability with the Pitchfork Magazine entry. Rockgenre (talk) 21:07, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hmm, Pitchfork Media a "low volume music site"? Allmusic a "generic database"? There isn't an overabundance of coverage but there's enough to justify inclusion in my view.--Michig (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 17:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I was on the fence until ~~I fell off~~ I mean, I found this writeup at allmusic, I quote "this rarity does have some historic value" gotta keep it. J04n(talk page) 21:37, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michig and Jo4n.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (Albert Mond (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Keep. Michig summed up my feelings quite well. There is just enough RS coverage available to meet WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 18:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I have just added another cite where they were mentioned on page 49 in a book called A History of Rock Music: 1951-2000. Rockgenre (talk) 01:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Speedy Close: See WP:SNOW. Pickbothmanlol 01:36, 21 November 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. Black Kite 00:39, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romain Gauthier

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

Looks like advertising to me. Prod because there are external links there, but I do not see why those say this topic is a notable one. Cynof Gavuf 12:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Third party articles at [111], [112], and at [113]. Article is not the least advertising in tone, just briefly describing a notable specialist company. DGG ( talk ) 20:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources above meeting WP:GNG. Andrea105 (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, sources are jewellery/watch industry sites, per WP:COMPANY coverage from "media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Although these websites are probably independent of the subject, they look to be aimed at promoting the industry in general. Incidentally the article is an abridged version of their Facebook page [114]. Cassandra 73 (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:27, 15 November 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. Tan | 39 21:34, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frederick A. Aprim

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

Non-notable individual [personal attack on article subject redacted per WP:BLP] Much of the vanity book promotion here [115] was done by an account that was permanently blocked for "racist rants, incivility, POV pushing, edit warring, disruption" [116]. Since vanity-press authors are usually the only ones who know about their own books, and certainly the only ones who go to all of the trouble of posting WP articles about themselves in order to promote those books, we undoubtedly have WP:AUTO and WP:COI here as well. Qworty (talk) 15:25, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google Scholar suggests that he has no notability whatsoever as an academic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BK. No evidence at all of third-party coverage. Tevildo (talk) 11:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am appalled that no one has remarked on the flagrant personal attack by the noinator on the article subject. The derisive commentary directed at the subject was completely unnecessary and completely inappropriate. Moreover, the nominator also rather ineptly attempts to out a blocked user as the article subject, based only on the fact that the user added accurate citations regarding the books named in the article. Even a casual review of the article history shows that a different user was responsive for the insertion of the inappropriate promotional material was added by a different user, more than tripling the length of the article (and that editor appears to be an associate of the article subject, not the subject himself). The subject also shows a significant number of GNews hits (searching on "aprim Assyria," although many of those come from a news source whose independence may legitimately be doubted. Given the peculiar behavior of the nominator, I fear that that this process has been irremediably disrupted by his misbehavior, and suggest that the closing admin invoke WP:IAR and close this discussion without a result and without any prejudice toward a renomination after a brief interval. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The nomination was originally rather immoderate, but accurate: this is a self-published author of no provable notability. Guy (Help!) 20:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ArcAngel (talk) 20:46, 15 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:00, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Celeste DiNucci

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

WP: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." Of the 143 unique hits on Google, all tie back to her Jeopardy! win. There are only seven hits on Google News, all seven of which date from the time of her Jeopardy! wins. Furthermore, there is a severe lack of reliable sources in the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 16:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jeopardy Tournament of Champions winners are a form of permanent notability. Some Jeopardy Champions go on to be otherwise notable like five-time winner Richard Cordray and others remain inconspicuous otherwise but are forever champions like Ken Jennings. Regardless of how extensive the media results are, I would give this a pass.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:19, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the past we've said that among those not notable outside of their game show appearances, contestants on game shows only meet notability if they have been record-breakers. Robert K S (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:25, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not everyone who has appeared on TV is notable. There's not enough information on this person to make a decent article. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:04, 22 November 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. JForget 23:57, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SeeSaw (VOD)

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

BRAND WAS announced on November 3. I doubt it's notable by now.. Cynof Gavuf 11:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is notable that Project Kangaroo has now transitioned into a brand. This received a lot of mainstream media coverage but I didn't ref it all as most of it was the same story the Guardian carried. User:Washen12.

Keep. Project Kangaroo was a significant, widely reported cross platform development of for UK Video on Demand. That fact alone makes this notable enough to keep. Mr Twain (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:24, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this entry is worth keeping as SeeSaw will be launched soon. It is one of the forerunners of video on demand in the UK and its evolution from project Kangaroo makes for interesting history in this media sector. User:ianpetzer.

Keep It appears to be a notable Hulu-esque online UK television venture. Would recommend a rename though as VOD isn't a proper article suffix. [Belinrahs|^talktome⁄ _ididit] 02:34, 19 November 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. This could actually have been speedied under G6 as uncontroversial cleanup. Black Kite 15:34, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rebel Intro

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

Unnecessary disambiguation page, as there are no links. Fails WP:DDD and MOS:DAB. PROD was removed by creator under the invalid WP:WAX argument. If this one gets deleted, we should go on and delete I Can See Arkansas as well Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 16:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Declan Clam (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Masters of the Universe characters. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 02:45, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Megator

AfDs for this article:

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

Speedy renomination: only 1 non reliable source, does not indicate encyclopedic notability. -- Jeandré (talk), 2009-11-08t12:44z 12:44, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters as per article. - BalthCat (talk) 18:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Does not meet general notability WP:GNG and WP:FANCRUFT Dwanyewest (talk) 14:56, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters. Megator does not appear to pass WP:GNG at this time as I can find no RS to expand this one-sentence article. Gongshow ^Talk 05:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_Masters_of_the_Universe_characters sounds like a good idea. Miami33139 (talk) 01:03, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maximus (nightclub)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this nightclub. Joe Chill (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Neither can I.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unable to find reliable sources covering the nightclub. Jujutacular ^T · C 03:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 03:48, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Jujutacular ^T · C 03:48, 15 November 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 (and/or Merge) to Dr. Zhivago#Names_and_places. Any relevant information can be placed in the main article Black Kite 15:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yuriatin

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

A non-notable fictional town. Malleus Fatuorum 17:41, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect: to Dr. Zhivago. - BalthCat (talk) 17:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I really think it should stand on its own. When I am working on other research, I will google this name, and from what I see, there are people who believe that this fictional place is actually a real spot on its own. "Yuryatin" already redirects to Dr. Zhivago, and its not particularly effective in that form. I felt that by creating this page and specifically stating that this is a fictional town based on a real city, we might actually have a tiny shot at preventing some hapless fool from planning a vacation to 1919 Perm....and who really wants to go there? I don't think it's all that much waste of bandwidth...and if you had to read some of the really bad research I have had to, I'd hope you would agree.

Thanks! Best to all. PR (talk) 18:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Dr. Zhivago#Names_and_places. The town is not notable apart from the book and subsequent film. Them From Space 23:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Dr. Zhivago#Names_and_places as ThemFromSpace suggested. The alternate spelling, "Yuryatin" should redirect to the subsection too. I searched and there won't be enough for an independent article. Pirate^Argh!!1! 12:43, 22 November 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. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 21:53, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PBot

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

This is a non-notable game that used to be run on a chat network. Tagged as unsourced for over one year, plenty of time to add sources by the authors or maintainers. Typical source check does not reveal anything usable. Miami33139 (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references. The bot has been used for 10 years and had a waiting queue for players who wanted to play (this is to mention how popular it was). I wouldn't call it "non-notable". Ok, it wasn't as popular as Doom was, but still... -- Lyverbe (talk) 18:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for adding sources. The article needs to meet the Wikipedia Notability criteria. Adding sources from blogs and personal websites does not meet that criteria. Miami33139 (talk) 22:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What next Miami? Are you going to AfD IRC poker now too? Why do you insist on pulling this stuff out of my contribs? --Tothwolf (talk) 19:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject of the article lacks reliable coverage from third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 18:11, 19 November 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.

I do not have time to reread WP instructions, but I believe PBot was deleted wrong. techtonik (talk) 20:33, 15 March 2010 (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 delete. JForget 22:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nightlife demographic

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

Neologism? Only source is a marketing company. Durova³⁶⁰ 18:39, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (but...): The information in itself is not uninteresting and could probably find a home elsewhere on Wikipedia e.g. in an article on the leisure industry. But unless it can be shown that the term and concept are established (that is, more established than "the demographic of XYZ" where XYX is any activity you care to mention), it's not appropriate that it should have an article all of its own. Barnabypage (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete & Redirect to demographic profile or marketing research. ClubDistrict's analysis is by no means consistent across all possible markets. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The demographic of pretty much any market is bound to have been researched by a marketing firm at some point, so even if reliable sources can be found an article about each one would probably be an unnecessary fork. Additional factor is that article was created by SPA and the company mentioned (Clubdistrict) have had an article about themselves deleted per G11 so they have recently attempted to promote themselves through Wikipedia; if this article was written someone from Clubdistrict this is original research unless the source material has been published independently (can't tell as there's no link to the source and my Google search hasn't located one). Cassandra 73 (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Cassandra 73, who basically said what I was going to say anyway (article created by a SPA presumably involved with the company mentioned, neologism, OR, and so forth). Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 00:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and delete Nightlife industry and move any worthwhile information to Nightlife which is at least a more mature article. Sussexonian (talk) 01:23, 16 November 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. JForget 22:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The other SBO related articles would have to be nominated (using this AFD as reference) if those should be deleted. --JForget 22:40, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SBO Custom Guitars

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

No reliable, independent sources found for this company. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It is nothing more than WP:SPAM, created by a WP:SPA in order to self-promote a non-notable company. We're not here to provide free advertising. Qworty (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Other WP:SPAM pages created by this self-promoting WP:SPA include SBO FX, SBO XY, and SBO Beast!. One of these products is in the design stage and hasn't even been produced yet. I suggest that these three other articles also be nominated for deletion and bundled with this AfD for SBO Custom Guitars. This is a really awful example of a non-notable company exploiting and spamming Wikipedia by creating multiple advertisements masquerading as legitimate articles. Qworty (talk) 19:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 21:06, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment trying a speedy. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:17, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Which failed, and rightly so. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all four. No reliable sources cited in the article, and I found none on the internet or in Guitar Player. There may well be references elsewhere, but I looked, and I didn't find them. Shame--that FX is kind of cool, with an MXR Phase 90 built in; the FY has a built-in Kaoss Pad. Still, no sources, no notability. Oh, Qworty, no need to get on your high horse. This isn't the first ad, it's not the worst of 'em, and it won't be the last. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional, no mention of the company or why it is notable or even any history appears to be a vehicle to list products. MilborneOne (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 17:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mark T Barclay

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

This is an article about a preacher with four self-published books and no 3rd-party references at all. Fails WP:BIO. If there exist any 3rd-party references, please add them to the article. -PorkHeart (talk) 09:28, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find anything other than trivial mentions of him in independent reliable sources. (The best there is is this[117], which I don't think is entirely independent of the subject...) Robofish (talk) 01:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is found all over the web, on many sites, Youtube, he has 20 books or more on Amazon. I believe he has written over 30 books. He is a very popular preacher, and is even on National TV. What exactly do I need to get to keep this info up? Thanks Guys/Gals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J777B (talk • contribs) 03:45, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Find some 3rd party sources indicating that he is noteworthy. It doesn't matter how much he has written or how many videos he's made. Noted newspapers, magazines, etc. (i.e. reliable sources) need to be talking about him. If they aren't, he isn't notable. See WP:BIO. -Jordgette (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dani Garza

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

Unreferenced BLP that doesn't establish notability. JaGa^talk 21:58, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability is not indicated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this DJ. Joe Chill (talk) 03:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Google him up under "Dj Morbid" name. I found many notable sources for him rather than looking him up under his "Dani Garza" name. I have also seen and played with him live at several events around the country and can verify he is real. Miss Pretty (talk) 17:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a bit of google searching but did not find any significant coverage to indicate notability. Nothing about him in IMdB either. Kinoq (talk) 03:26, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. An IP, 72.37.249.36, who signed as Miss Pretty, inappropriately removed[118] my delete !vote. I have restored my !vote above and would like the other AfD participants and the closing admin to keep an eye on this AfD and check that their !votes are not removed. Kinoq (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have done as Miss Pretty asked and Googled him as "DJ Morbid". I have found nothing notable, even after removing DJ Morbid Kitty (what a gorgeous name...) from the search. Having said that, there seems to be an inordinate amount of entries with .ge origins. As I can't read the Mxedruli script, I can't say what these are - or even if they refer to the same person (which does seem unlikely seeing as Garza is from Texas with an Italian or Spanish name, and Mxedruli is used for the Kartvelian languages such as Georgian. The fact that DJ Morbid is real is not under dispute. I know many musicians who are real - and have played gigs with them - but they are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Five among the given nine references are verifiable and relevant.Enough notable --Rirunmot 23:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
Note: This goes out to Kinoq. I am sorry, this was my first time to edit page this talk page and I actually originally deleted all of it and when I did "Alt Z" command I must not have not pressed it enough to get yours back up. So I apologize for that error. I hope I didn't erase anybody else's comments. And to make it clear for Peridon, I have found many .com and USA sites for him. Plus just becuase he is from Texas does not mean he only has played in Texas and will be found in Texas. I have found noteable links for him from other countries that are verifiable according to terms. Miss Pretty (talk) 23:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the lack of reliable sources. Furthermore, the sources in the article are either passing mentions or from unreliable websites, such as LiveJournal. This article should be deleted for failing Wikipedia:Verifiablity and Wikipedia:Notability (people). Cunard (talk) 02:21, 22 November 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] Elliot, Justin, "Citing Work Of Right-Wing Intern Spy, GOP Accuses Muslim Group Of Infiltrating Hill With Intern 'Spies', TPMMuckraker, October 14, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009

[2] Gertz, Bill, "Inside the Ring: Hasan connection", Washington Times, November 12, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009

[3] Tancredo, Tom, "The threat of the "Muslim Mafia", The Denver Post, November 6, 2009, accessed November 16, 2009

[4] "Muslim Mafia: an important investigative book on the Muslim Brotherhood in America" New English Review, October 14, 2009, accessed November 5, 2009

[5] Chester, Phyllis, "Muslim Mafia Exposed", Pajamas Media, October 15, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009

[6] "Book Exposes CAIR's Exaggerations, Efforts to Stymie Law Enforcement", Investigative Project, October 15, 2009, accessed November 15, 2009

[7] Muslim Mafia: Inside the Secret Underworld That's Conspiring to Islamize America, Gauvatz, Dave, and Sperry, Paul, p. 64, WND Books (2009), ISBN 1935071106, 9781935071105

[AUTOREF5-8] Sherwell, Philip; Alex Spillius (November 7, 2009). "Fort Hood shooting: Texas army killer linked to September 11 terrorists". The Daily Telegraph. Retrieved November 10, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work= (help)

[SeattleTimes1-9] "FBI reassessing past look at Fort Hood suspect". Seattle Times. November 10, 2009.

[AUTOREF7-10] Hess, Pamela and Sullivan, Eileen, "Radical imam praises alleged Fort Hood shooter," Associated Press, November 9, 2009, accessed November 10, 2009

[L.A.Times_Meyer-11] Meyer, Josh (November 9, 2009). "Fort Hood shooting suspect's ties to mosque investigated". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved November 13, 2009. {{cite news}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |newspaper= (help)

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]