Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 2

< Wikipedia:Articles for deletion | Log
< 1 September 3 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. I have ignored votes from brandnew users. The issue is the sourcing. The only halfway useful sources are the academic ones written by the authors of the software. This does not cross the notability bar and N/GNG require independant sources. Sorry but this isn't suitable for inclusion just yet Spartaz Humbug! 03:54, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fastflow (computing)

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

Apparently non-notable software project. The references listed and that I have found that I have checked do not mention the software, mention it in passing or do not meet the bar for academic sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I simply am mystified by Nuujinn's comment above. First of all, this is a field I understand reasonably well. Does Nuujinn claim to understand this field? Unless he/she does, a statement that software is "apparently non-notable" is vacuous. (This is a serious problem, IMO, in many of the software AfD nominations I have seen.) Also, on the Fastflow website, there are the following references (which should be incorporated into the WP article) that more than meet the notability requirements AFAIK:
Papers
[ART10] Marco Aldinucci, Salvatore Ruggieri, and Massimo Torquati. Porting Decision Tree Algorithms to Multicore using FastFlow, in: Proc. of European Conference in Machine Learning and Knowledge Discovery in Databases (ECML PKDD), volume 6321 of LNCS, pages 7–23, Barcelona, Spain, Sept. 2010. Springer. (16% acceptance rate)bib
  • Comment, document exists as a tech report from Aldinucci's uni (local tech reports are not generally reviewed--I do not know how other unis handle these, but where I work anyone can write up a tech report and we'll put it up. It's a quick way of getting the data out into the world, establishing what you have done, without having to wait for acceptance and publication via peer review.). The conference will occur starting september 20th, see the conference web page, but this has apparently not yet been published. If anyone can find a copy of the proceeding, please advise. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[ABL10] Marco Aldinucci, Andrea Bracciali, Pietro Lio'. Formal Synthetic Immunology, Ercim News 82:40–41, July 2010. bib
[ABL10] Marco Aldinucci, Andrea Bracciali, Pietro Lio', Anil Sorathiya, and Massimo Torquati. StochKit-FF: Efficient Systems Biology on Multicore Architectures, in: Proc. of the 1st Workshop on High Performance Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (HiBB, in conjunction with Euro-Par 2010), LNCS, Ischia, Italy, Sept. 2010. Springer. To appear. bib
[ADK10] Marco Aldinucci, Marco Danelutto, Peter Kilpatrick, Massimiliano Meneghin, and Massimo Torquati. Accelerating sequential programs using FastFlow and self-offloading, Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Informatica, Italy, number TR-10-03, February 2010. bib
[AMT09] Marco Aldinucci, Massimiliano Meneghin, and Massimo Torquati. Efficient Smith-Waterman on multi-core with FastFlow, in: Proc. of Intl. Euromicro PDP 2010: Parallel Distributed and network-based Processing. IEEE. Feb. 2010.bib
[ATM09] Marco Aldinucci, Massimo Torquati, and Massimiliano Meneghin. FastFlow: Efficient Parallel Streaming Applications on Multi-core, Università di Pisa, Dipartimento di Informatica, Italy, number TR-09-12, September 2009. bib
[ADM09] Marco Aldinucci, Marco Danelutto, Massimiliano Meneghin, Peter Kilpatrick, and Massimo Torquati. Efficient streaming applications on multi-core with FastFlow: the biosequence alignment test-bed, in: Proc. of Intl. Parallel Computing (PARCO), September 2009. bib
  • Comment, Science direct is an Elsevier press service, whereas the paper is published by IOS press (those two companies are both from the Netherlands and they are in competition). This paper is in a volume that collects the best papers from the conference Parco 2009 (whereas the conference itself has not electronic edition but only a printed book). This paper has been reviewed before the conference and accepted, then selected at the conference, then reviewed again and accepted by other reviewers. IOS press sells it for 20$. I have a copy. I'm involved in fastflow. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 17:40, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Talks
FastFlow: a pattern-based programming framework for multicores. Dagstuhl seminar 10191, Schloss Dagstuhl, Germany. May 2010. Invited. Slides available on-demand.
  • Comment, at my uni we get guest lectures 1-2 a week, sometimes from folks who asked to come to take a look at what we're during, sometimes from friends of the person giving the talk. Such do not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FastFlow: why we need yet another programming framework. Guest lecture, Computer science Dept. Queen’s University Belfast, UK. March 2010. Invited. Slides available on-demand.
  • Comment, at my uni we get guest lectures 1-2 a week, sometimes from folks who asked to come to take a look at what we're during, sometimes from friends of the person giving the talk. Such do not confer notability. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Efficient Smith-Waterman on multi-core with FastFlow. IEEE PDP 2010: Parallel Distributed and network-based Processing, Pisa, Italy. February 2010.
Efficient streaming applications on multi-core with FastFlow: the biosequence alignment test-bed. ParCo 2009, Lyon, France. September 2009.
  • Comment, could you prove, or at least, argument about this? Publishing a non-original material is a serious infringement of copyright; claiming an author has published duplicate material is a serious attack to the good name of the authors. I kindly ask you to either prove it or delete the previous comment. (I am involved in the project). Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 16:30, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sure. It appears to me that the papers published or to be published in the conferences listed above have the same titles as these talks. I'm assuming that the papers were written, submitted to the conference, accepted, and both presented and published as part of the proceedings of the conference. If this is correct, I would suggest that the publication of the proceedings and the presentation of the paper at the conference are together a single reference, not two. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:39, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, probably a misunderstanding. Of course the talks have same title of the papers. In the FastFlow page they are linked to PDF of the paper and to PDF of the slides. This is the only reason because they appear duplicated. If the suggestion is: put the PDF of slides in the same raw of the paper, well, this is good idea for improving the fastflow website. Thanks. (otherwise I did not really understand ...). I'm involved in the FastFlow project. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PDF versions of all the papers and slides are on the Fastflow website. (I haven't bothered to link to them, but I hope that someone will.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by HowardBGolden (talk • contribs) 02:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The above refs can be viewed in-context at the Fastflow web site, here. Besides the above user, is there any group or project of established users we can appeal to here on Wikipedia that has the in-depth knowledge of C++ that would be helpful in determining the notability of what its author is calling "Fastflow"? A few folks who could look more closely at those papers, for example, to see which are directly applicable to the technology, and render an opinion as to whether they constitute a sufficient basis for notability?  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm striking the above !vote as an obvious sock or collaborator of one of the co-creators of this programming framework and the creator of this article about it under his account name Aldinuc (talk · contribs) There's no outing issue here, btw. User Aldinuc has self-identified as one of the creators of the framework. For the quacking I base this action on, take a look at the revision history for the user page belonging to Pomello (talk · contribs), which account was just created today, and whose only edit has been to !vote here. Also, Aldinuc, since your editing experience certainly didn't begin with your creation of your Aldinuc account, will you please disclose the other account name(s) or wiki location(s) where you've edited previously?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ohiostandard, I copy-pasted Aldinuc (talk · contribs) user description because I did not know how to make a brand-new one, and I would like to disclose that I'm C++ expert. Template usage in wikipedia is pretty obscure to me, that's it, you spotted me  :-) Then I discovered (because of inexperience) that aldinuc page includes personal information (such as skype address and the fact that he/she like guitar and I deleted these information from my user page). I would like to add that I was pretty undecided if copying his/her one or your one, then I discarded your one because it is much more complex and refer to obscure-to-me things such as sandbox, etc. Moreover I'm also Italian and there was a Italy tag there that I can copy. I did not created the account today, I've created my user page today, I've created my account before august for sure, don't remember exactly when, there should be a way to check if it somehow matters. By the way, I've also copied the source from this page, since I did not knew how to indent things, sign a paragraph, make a link and so on. I confess I'm a computer scientist, and this is technically a wiki, and I edit dozen of other wiki pages for other reasons. I hope this not a problem. -- Pomello (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and, yes, he shown me how to edit the user page (because I've asked), and yes we cooperating since I'm using his software, and I think it is good piece of software. And yes, I found this software on the web and asked him to cooperate (starting from July). I did not expected that, due to this, I cannot write my own opinion. And I decided to do it today - as my own initiative - because I've seen the page is under deletion and you asked have opinions, well, IMO the page is worth, and I tried to argument on why I think it is worth. Anyway, I absolutely would not like to violate any rule. I'm really just a newbie in editing wikipedia that would like to give a technical opinion on a software that I know quite well because I'm using it. Best. Pomello (talk) 15:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. HowardBGolden, I've worked in IT at a major uni since the early 1980s, although that's not really relevant here. If you look at the article, please note that most of the references cited came out before the software. Also, I have read some of the papers posted on the project's home page (I assume the homepage is where you got them, since it appears that you cut and pasted the list from there, have you read them?), some cover it in details, some in passing, but all are written by the authors of the software and if you RTFM, none of those can be considered reliable since they are PDFs hosted on a self published website. The software may be notable, but we need good references to show that it is. Pomello, I see that you are apparently new around here, glad to have you on board. Download stats thankfully do not make a piece of software notable. See for example this iphone app with more that a 1000 downloads a day (which, ironically is probably notable given the daily mail article). Basically, what we're looking for here is significant coverage in reliable sources. Blogs generally speaking do not count, but Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses might, do you have the volume/issue/date for the article in question? --Nuujinn (talk) 11:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn, in the bibliography I pasted above, I didn't read the papers. However, I see that some of them are in reputable journals and computer conferences. Generally, these are subject to peer review. Therefore, I believe that they are considered reliable due to the independent peer review process. (If I'm mistaken about this, please advise.) Please note that LNCS (Lecture Notes in Computer Science), published by Springer, is a prestigious source as well. Each volume is independently edited. It is fairly common for academics to put "pre-prints" of their published articles on their websites so the information can be accessed with paying the high fees charged by some publishers and professional associations.
Of course the software came out after the papers. The software was open-sourced on Sourceforge once it was sufficiently developed. It's clear that the authors of the papers were using earlier versions of the software to advance their research.
The issue of conflict of interest is significant. If one of the authors of the papers wrote part or all of the WP article, this should be disclosed. This may lead to a decision to delete the article (I'm not familiar with the COI rules). However, the notability of the topic has been established based on all the publications in reliable, refereed journals and books. As far as the sock-puppet charge, I have no information about any posters other than myself. I post under my real name, and I don't use any pseudonyms or noms de plume. You can e-mail me using the WP feature. — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused, you say "It's clear that the authors of the papers were using earlier versions of the software to advance their research" but also "In the bibliography I pasted above, I didn't read the papers"--if you didn't read the articles, how could that be clear? Also, please note, I said "If you look at the article, please note that most of the references cited came out before the software." (emphasis added). Some of the sources referenced in the article are from 2002, 2003, 2004. Regarding the question of COI, the author of the article is one of the designers of the software, see this. And whatever practice is for academics to prepublish, we cannot use pdfs from a self-published web site as sources. Of course, we can use the versions from the journals themselves. ----Nuujinn (talk) 12:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify: I didn't read the papers. I searched for the papers on GScholar and I skimmed some of them. From this I realized that the papers were substantial scholarly papers that incorporated significant material about Fastflow, or were about Fastflow itself. (Have you read/skimmed any of the pasted references? If so, what is your opinion?) I don't have no-charge access at home to the academic journals/books, but I do at work. I will confirm that the PDFs on the website are actually published in the academic journals/books. I can't do this until 7 September 2010 (UTC) when I return to my office. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I read some of the references above from the author's web site. I'm unsure about them--on the one hand, assuming they are valid publications, and I'm sure they are, the sources are reliable. On the other hand, it troubles me that they are all by the author of the article and of the software--there lies a clear COI. The relevant portion of policy is, I believe, WP:SPIP, and my reading of that suggests that although the sources are reliable as peer reviewed journals, articles written by an author of the software alone are insufficient to establish notability regardless of where they are published, and what we require are some reliable sources written by "people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) [who] have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." So far, I haven't been able to find such references via google scholar. On a related note, I'll point out that the term "FastFlow" has been used before, such as FastFlow: A Framework for Accurate Characterization of Network Traffic bySR Kundu, B Chakravarty, K Basu, SK Das in 2006, and in reference to lasers and chemical compounds. Makes the searching a bit tougher. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm partly at blame for this being brought here at this time: I should have addressed this sooner. Some history will be useful for other editors to help put this article in its correct context. User Aldinuc (talk · contribs) is one of the co-creators of this programming framework; he created this article and, about nine months ago, co-released the Fastflow programming framework and template library that it documents. He disclosed his identity as user Aldinuc here, btw, something I was informed of after I'd made this 30 May 2010 post to ANI about the Fastflow article and its author. I was too quick by half in marking that ANI post as "resolved"; I did not, for example, realize at the time that the only user to respond to it while the thread was open was not an admin ( although he became one the following month ). When I closed the ANI thread I said I'd take the matter to COIN for further action. I didn't do that, though.
Although I strongly disliked that the framework's author had used Wikipedia to promote his own new creation, and although I believed at the time that what he is calling "Fastflow" is not notable, I nevertheless wanted to get some opinions from C++ programmers on whether this article is useful on Wikipedia. ( Here's one recent attempt, for example. ) Probably the strictly-correct thing to do would have been to AfD right away since my search found, at that time, only a single paper had been presented about it, at an IEEE mini-conference, as I recall. When informed of my ANI post by another user – perhaps I should have informed him myself, even though I referred to him and his software only by pseudonyms at ANI – he responded with this defense of his actions and his article.
I'm still not quite sure what to do with this article. Here's a run-down of my conflicting motives that concern it: (1) I don't like to see useful articles about topics that get little popular-press coverage deleted from Wikipedia. (2) I don't know whether this is a useful article, since this area of programming isn't one I know much about, and since it's so new - version 1.0 was just released this month. (3) I really don't want every computer scientist who creates a new algorithm or implementation to be able to immediately create an article about his work on Wikipedia. (4) I'm personally aware of a researcher, in pharmacology, btw, who has over 15,000 citations to his papers, but doesn't have an article about him or about any of his discoveries here. I raise this fourth item to point up my impression that publishing a couple of papers and giving some talks about one's intellectual creations doesn't necessarily mean they merit an article on Wikipedia. (5) If you look at the contributions history for user Aldinuc (talk · contribs) you'll see that this is a single-purpose-account and may also come to the same conclusion that I alluded to in my ANI post, that this user almost certainly has a significant edit history under some other account. Perhaps that would be on the Italian Wikipedia, I don't know, but no new user creates a first article like this one, via such rapid-fire edits, without prior experience. Anyway, I'm going to think about this topic some more before I !vote, but I did think other editors should have the benefit of this context in coming to their own decisions. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 12:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Useful article I had the chance to use the article and related links. I used the library for teaching activity at my university and the students found it useful and somehow precise. I have no concerns relative to the way the matter has been presented. And I think the framework discussed is worth being included. As far as the programming perspective is concerned, the C++ implementation of the framework is a quite good piece of work: simple, effective coding from the user perspective, quite efficient in targeting common multicore systems. It compares well with existing, much more famous libraries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjaroslav (talk • contribs) 13:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mjaroslav, I see you just created this account and that the foregoing is your only edit. Would you mind telling us how this matter came to your attention?  – OhioStandard (talk) 13:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OhioStandard, as I said, I used information from this article for teaching purposes. Coming back to the page, I read comments and I thought I could express my opinion on the subject even I never contributed to wikipedia before. I registered and wrote my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.47.42.201 (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Comment. Nuujinn, yes I'm a newbie as wikipedia editor (I hope that I did not violated any rule), I'm not new as computer scientistic. I'm using this software to build a Monte Carlo simulator, it will appear soon on sourceforge. I knew fastflow via wikipedia, and this is the main reason of my support. Reliable sources for PDF can be easily found on the web. Many of them are referred to reviewed conferences; people usually refer to self-published sources (as Technical Reports) to avoid to violate the copyright of the publishers, look at:
LNCS vol 6321 Springer (ECML/PKDD 2010 that is an A-class scientific venue with over 650 submitted papers and 18% acceptance rate this year, look at the conference webpage).
Ercim news (Journal, article are usually invited).
IEEE PDP 2010.
IOS Parallel Computing 2009.
As I said, I'm a newbie here. I might be wrong, but I honestly don't support the idea that blogs and download count don't contribute to notability in general sense (as far they are third-party sources). They might not contribute to scientific notability, but in order to to discuss it I think we should begin a scientific discussion, thus you should raise scientific problems in the approach, e.g. if the approach is not new, not sound, not motivated or whatever else. Scientifically, I think it is a promising approach, and as I said I believe third-party citation will appear, IMO it is matter of time. The same kind of approach has been recently pushed by Intel with TBB even if with a different back-end that use interlocked operations instead of lock-free approach (see HotPar that by the way cites - at citation 1 - a paper from FastFlow authors proposing FastFlow approach, don't know why they still don't call it fastflow). About the handbook I've mentioned, unfortunately I don't have yet the electronic access to it (I see the paper, I've asked my company to get it).
As a final comment I should say that computer science is not pharmacology, each discipline has its own numbers; the most cited paper ever in computer science get about 4800 citations, the second one 2700 (take a look to cireseerx). In computer science a paper reaching 100 as citation count is rare.
I think the article itself may evolve in the sense of describing the approach: high-level programming coupled with lock-free approach, maybe moving the accent from FastFlow itself to the FastFlow approach to parallel computing. I was planning to modify the article (I did not since I see it is under discussion). I hope it may help the discussion. -- Pomello (talk) 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, I'll check out the refs later. As for the blogs and downloads, it's policy--personally, I'd like to extend the policy for blogs relative to opensource projects since they do not generally participate in the more traditional media. Downloads wouldn't work, as it would be very hard to verify, and doesn't really mean much. Also, the cite count's not critical--my concern about the papers was that all the ones covering the software appear to be from the author of the software--if we have a couple more from other sources, and we have some from the author that are peer-reviewed, we're in good shape. Thanks for the help--for a noob you're off to a fine start. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I would ask those involved here to consider a couple of issues. One is the wikipedia policy on conflict of interest. If you are involved in the software project, you should probably not be editing the article, and if you do, you should be very careful to maintain a neutral point of view. The other issue is wikipedia policy on sock puppetry. There is an appearance of socking here, and folks will be looking into this. If you are in violation of these policies, it would be a good idea to admit it now. Aside from the impact engaging in such behavior might have on wikipedia, it could also have unintended effects in the real world as these conversations are available to anyone with an interest. --Nuujinn (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I support Nuujinn's suggestion, and would further suggest that such a disclosure could reasonably be made via e-mail, if that is preferred, to either him or myself. I notice he has the e-mail feature activated for his account, as do I. Nuujinn and I have never interacted before, btw, but from what I've seen here I trust his judgment, and would intend to forward a copy of any e-mail I might receive concerning this matter to him and to EdJohnston (see below), an admin who's familiar with this as well. My purpose in doing so would be to confer as to how we can proceed with appropriate care to minimize any possibility of the kind of unintended consequences Nuujinn refers to above.  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, email is an excellent idea, and I'm happy to receive same, and will also forward as needed. It would be shame if a momentary lapse in judgment affected a promising career, it is now normal practice to google for information on job applicants. Wikipedia is not interested in punitive actions, but we do need to prevent socking so we can all deal with one another in good faith, and I am sure that any misjudgments admitted to would be quickly forgiven. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For previous discussions on user talk, see [2] and [3]. This article doesn't pass our notability standards at the present time. I am particularly concerned that User:Aldinuc has been adding links to Fastflow in other articles. The Fastflow system may eventually win the attention of other computer scientists who are not part of the Fastflow research group. Whenever that happens, and the publications appear, this article can be recreated. To predict now that the Fastflow system will gain wide usage and respect within the field is an exercise in speculation, since the third-party reviews and articles do not exist. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note - Ohiostandard has suggested that there may be sockpuppets or meatpuppets participating in this AfD. In particular, he observes that the User:Pomello account was created by User:Aldinuc, as is shown in the logs. I invite any editors who are affiliated with the Fastflow research group to declare that fact in their comments, to avoid problems later on. Editors who pretend to be independent, but are not, may be viewed dimly. The admin who closes the AfD should be prepared to make any necessary allowances. EdJohnston (talk) 19:10, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. I'm one of the co-authors of the FastFlow framework. I would ask to consider just a couple of issues. First, from the scientific viewpoint FastFlow is notable since many peer-reviewed articles have been accepted and published into international journals and conference proceedings (some other are under review and hopefully will appear). For example take a look at the accepted paper list of the PKDD2010 forthcoming conference Accepted papers. This is a fact and not an opinion. Furthermore, on wikipedia there are lots of articles which discuss specific software (for example TBB, aMule, ntop, troff, memcached, postfix, just to mention some I know and use) and many of them don't have any scientific articles published on peer-reviewed journals or conferences. Second, probably due to inexperience in using wikipedia, some errors during the writing of the FastFlow wikipedia article have been committed, but I think such errors can be fixed with your comments and suggestions. All in all, I think it is worth to have the FastFlow article on wikipedia. massimot (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, you're entitled to your opinion. But we have policies that guide our decisions. I see that this is your first edit, so I'm assuming you may not be familiar with them. The primary problem thus far as I see it with the question of notability, as WP defines it, is that all of the articles I've been able to find are authored by an author of the software. That's a conflict of interest, and my opinion is that we must have reliable sources from disinterested parties to establish notability. If you can provide references to some, that would be most excellent. Also, please note that we are concerned here only with FastFlow, not with other articles which may also fail inclusion criteria--other stuff exists, but we're not dealing with that at the moment. Finally, if someone suggested you join the discussion here, that might be consider a violation of the no canvassing policy. People with a potential conflict of interest should be cautious in their comments and edits, as it can be difficult for such to maintain a neutral point of view. I hope all of that is clear, please feel free to post questions here or on my talk page if something is not. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nuujinn, you're entitled to your opinion as well. As I read the conflict of interest and notability guidelines, they don't interact in the way you describe. A developer of an idea can write an article that is published in a peer-reviewed (reliable) publication. That doesn't conflict with the conflict of interest guidelines (as I read them). It isn't necessary to have the article written by an independent party if it is peer-reviewed. (If you wish, I'll walk you through the various WP policies and guidelines that I believe support my position.) As I said, when a WP article is written or edited by someone with a conflict of interest, a higher standard is necessary to assure WP:NPOV, but WP:COI doesn't prohibit such articles absolutely. — HowardBGolden (talk) 21:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By all means. As I said, I am uncomfortable with using only sources written by the author of the software, since I do not believe they establish general notability, but by no mean certain. What is quite surprising to me is that we don't yet have any sources that are not written by people involved in the project--if the software is truly notable, I would think it easy to find such sources. --Nuujinn (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's not just this article that's under consideration, btw. Aldinuc also inserted information about his software framework into at least a dozen related articles, after he created this one. If this article is deleted, those edits should be reverted as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 10:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per HowardBGolden's findings at the top of this discussion. Journal articles and other scientific publications are reliable sources, even if they're all by the same people; this isn't an issue of self-published sources or improperly citing oneself. Nyttend (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's my understanding that there are no references provided *that actually mention Fastflow* that are not written by members of the Fastflow research group. (The reference list included a couple of articles on the general issues of parallel computing). If projects are allowed to establish notability by simply getting their own publications accepted in journals, then the gate is wide open. EdJohnston (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've just made a run through the reference listed above, most, IMO, fail the bar of reliable sources as they have not yet appeared in print, or are essentially self-published. My !vote will be delete unless we can find some additional sources written by parties not closely connected to the software project, as I believe WP:SPIP applies. I also encourage other editors to examine the sources carefully, there may be some degree of academic puffery going on here. --Nuujinn (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
EdJohnston, the crux of the issue (IMO) is what it means to have an article published in a refereed academic journal. I believe this establishes a presumption that the article is notable within that field, because that's what the referees do. This is especially true when the journal is well-known and selective. An article published in such a journal has risen above WP:SPIP IMO. You worry that "the gate is wide open" if this is allowed. I view that as a hypothetical that needs evidence. I think it makes sense to allow refereed academic journal articles to establish notability and see what happens. If this leads to bad results, then the criteria would need to be tightened. Let's wait and see. — HowardBGolden (talk) 16:36, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the sake of completeness take a look to: Current Bioinformatics, 2010, 5, 176-194 Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses by Xiandong Meng, Yanqing Ji and Hai Jiang that can be found here. FastFlow is reference [61]. I'm involved in fastflow. The electronic version is under copyright not sure it can be freely downloaded, I'll be happy to send a copy to anybody willing to have a look by private mail. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 16:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I requested a copy of the article from Aldinuc. It contains the following brief statement about Fastflow: "OpenMP has been used to parallelize the Smith-Waterman algorithm. Aldinucci et al. [61] has demonstrated that the OpenMP approach outperforms several parallelization schemes such as Intel Threading Building Blocks (TBB) and Cilk." Reference [61] is "Aldinucci M, Torquati M, Meneghin M. FastFlow: efficient parallel streaming applications on multi-core, 2009; arXiv:0909.1187v1." In my opinion, this demonstrates the notability of Fastflow. It is written by independent researchers in bioinformatics, not by members of the project. — HowardBGolden (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Does the text of the article mention fastflow directly? I believe that would count as passing mention of OpenMP, but if the text of the article does not even mention fastflow directly, I fail to see how that could be considered even a passing mention, much less significant coverage, of fastflow. --Nuujinn (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The text of the article refers to the reference (which is about Fastflow) demonstrating using OpenMP (and, by implication, Fastflow) to outperform some other parallelization techniques. I think this is a direct reference. It also makes clear that the independent authors recognize the notability of Fastflow. (I think we are quibbling at this point. The article is about advanced techniques to do sequence analysis. The discussion of Fastflow is not a passing mention, since it is one of the advanced techniques. This isn't like a mention of a rock band in a biography of a famous politician (IMO), which would be a passing mention). — HowardBGolden (talk) 19:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, respectfully, I disagree. Passing mention means that a reference merely mentions a topic, but does not provide significant coverage, and I don't think we even have passing mention here. The Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses article does not directly address fastflow at all, but rather uses an article by Aldinucci covering fastflow to support the statement that OpenMP can be used to parallelize a particular algorithm in a manner that is more efficient than other approaches. To connect the mention of OpenMP in source A (Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses) to coverage of fastflow in source B (FastFlow: efficient parallel streaming applications on multi-core) may well be crossing the line established by WP:SYNTH--as you note, you're relying on an implication, rather than an explicit connection drawn by the authors of source A. Rather than showing that "independent authors recognize the notability of Fastflow", the article shows that some researchers recognize the notability of OpenMP, which has been around for a while now. But even if drawing the connection between the mention of OpenMP in the one article to fastflow in the other does not violate WP:SYNTH, it is still no more than passing mention--if that's all that's in Advanced Acceleration Technologies for Biological Sequence Analyses, there's no significant coverage of either OpenMP or fastflow there. --Nuujinn (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, respectfully, the discussion here is no longer on notability, but on how a "related work" section in a scientific paper should be written according to some interpretation of wikipedia rules. If a scientist would like to tell "OpenMP is fast" just put there a reference to OpenMP not to fastflow. The cited paper present fastflow not other topics. I'm really curious to know why, according to this vision, these authors mentioned a fastflow paper, since, as you said there plenty of papers discussing openMP and Smith-Waterman algorithm. The fact that the "fastflow" is not explicitly written in the text is not relevant at all. Scientific publishing does not have the same rules as wikipedia. I'm still part of the fastflow team. Aldinuc (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm sorry, but I believe you are incorrect, as the primary issue here is notability as defined by wikipedia policy. I'm curious, too, as to why these authors mentioned a fastflow paper--curiosity not withstanding, the problem is they do not say why, and any interpretation we make as to the reasons why they made the decision they did constitute WP:OR. We are supposed to follow reliable sources, not make assumptions or interpretations. You are, however, correct when you state that "Scientific publishing did [does?] not have the same rules of [as?] wikipedia"--wikipedia has its own set of policies and guidelines, and those are the ones we follow. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, we? Are you meaning that wikipedia pages in general accomplish your interpretation of notability rules? Check the pages of TBB, aMule, ntop, troff, memcached, postfix (to mention only the one mentioned the post above) and prepare to produce a lot AfDs ... Thanks for notifying the typos (fixed). Aldinuc (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, do I mean are we always successful in conforming to our policies? No, because wikipedia is not finished and never will be. Is it relevant that other articles on topics that are not notable exist? No, because other stuff exists. Are we going to have lots of AFDs every day, day in and day out? Yes, I think so. If you think those other articles cover non-notable topics, by all means, bring them to AFD. If you think they are notable and can be fixed, by all means, have a go. If you need help, feel free to ask me on my talk page. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, Aldinuc, are you arguing that either of those meets the guidelines set by WP:RS? I do not believe that sourceforge or company blogs are considered a reliable sources. Do you know who the authors are? --Nuujinn (talk) 20:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer, I'm just putting here information I'm finding on the web. All of them have been compiled much before this discussion. I (and the fastflow team in general) have no relations with the authors. I do believe that a person who download a software (an advanced software), implement with it a non trivial application (spending days or weeks of their time), then write a report on the web, or create a brand new project using this software is really worth of attention. Much more than any direct reference written in a paper. Why they should not be reliable sources? Is physical print that give you reliability? Thus should we conclude that wikipedia itself is, on the whole, an unreliable source? I'm still part of the fastflow project. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-published sources are not considered reliable, see WP:SPS. And yes, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, since it's a wiki, see WP:RSEX. Being in print is not a requirement, but blogs and software project pages are not considered reliable, esp. if the author is unknown. If an author is a known expert in a given field, and has appeared in reliable sources, their blog might be considered a reliable source, but generally speaking, some formal editorial oversight is required. There are some things that I am truly an expert, but my expertise does not make my blog a reliable source. Anyone can get a sourceforge account and say what they like. Yes, doing the kind of work you describe is, I think, valuable and worthy of attention, but the question is worthy of what kind of attention and where. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and it has rules governing what belongs here. Please read the relevant policies. --Nuujinn (talk) 22:55, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, well, it seems that I found another paper mentioning fastflow: Concurrent Evaluation of a Directed Acylic Graph by Rakesh Joshi (paper here take a look at beginning of page 3, there is a direct reference). It appeared at the ParaPlop 2010 conference held in Carefree, Arizona last march 2010. There cannot be any doubt that the mentioned fastflow is this fastflow, as the comment is about a SPSC queue bases lock-free/CAS-free programming environment. I'm really thinking that here the only issue is the time one would dedicate to this kind of searches (search on google: fastflow queue, then go to page 5 of the results, by the way in previous pages you can find several blogs also discussing fastflow). I should add that unfortunately I don't know the author, as he is advocating a nice work, and that I'm still involved in the fastflow project. Best regards. Aldinuc (talk) 22:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess this is a mention of Fastflow:

The graph pattern resembles a network of pipeline filters, notably the recently available FastFlow framework, which relies on assemblies of SPSC queues, copy semantics and allocates dedicated copy threads (Emitters & Collectors) to realize lock- free/CAS-free operation.

Not clear if this is more than a passing mention, but Rakesh Joshi is actually seeing a resemblance between his technique and Fastflow. EdJohnston (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but I do think it is more passing mention than significant coverage. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fastflow is the only third-party programming framework mentioned in the paper. Aldinuc (talk) 00:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, can you point to a WP policy that suggests that being the only third-party programming framework mentioned in a paper confers notability? --Nuujinn (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, the Rakesh Joshi's paper presents a programming technique in detail. Toward the end of the paper, author recognizes that a similar technique has been already used in the fastflow framework. Of course the argument applies backward, as the description of the technique provided by the paper indirectly explains some of the techniques adopted in fastflow. By the way the structure of the paper the author chose is smart as enabled him to make the analogies in extreme synthesis and elegance (as I said, interesting paper). FastFlow is indeed significantly covered by this paper (I were editing FastFlow page, and I no longer do it, I'll certainly use this material). I hope nobody here is going to measure significance of a sentence by its length. With respect the last sentence (and only with respect to this), it might be useful to remember that Salvatore_Quasimodo, Nobel price 1959, got the the price thanks of a composition of 15 words (70 characters). I'm also genuinely curious to know EdJohnston 's opinion after this discussion as he/she expressed their vote before all this long discussion (also via e-mail, if he/she would not like to make it public). Best regards. Aldinuc (talk) 10:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I've taken my fourth jaunt through google scholar and news, my local uni library, and I'm just not seeing anything that I believe meets the bar for general notability--all of the sources that meet the criterion of significant coverage are authored by a major contributor to the both the article here and the software itself, and my reading of WP:SPIP leads me to the conclusion that such sources should not be considered reliable. Many arguments have been presented for a keep, but thus far, few have a grounding in WP policy. --Nuujinn (talk) 00:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I reiterate my position that publication in a scholarly journal (which subjects the article to peer review) is sufficient to create notability. I will quote from Uncle G: "The places for publishing new theories and new discoveries are the appropriate scholarly journals. For new discoveries and theories, it is those journals that perform the process of fact checking, peer review, and publication, and from those journals that new things are accepted into the general corpus of human knowledge." [4] The point is that Fastflow has been published (multiple times). The scholarly journals and conferences have done their job. It is time to accept Fastflow into the general corpus of human knowledge. Every new idea has an originator. Wikipedia doesn't accept the originator's word for the notability, but Wikipedia should accept the judgment of scholars in the field that the subject is worthy of publication. WP:SPIP doesn't apply in this situation (IMO). — HowardBGolden (talk) 01:17, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Well, first of all, fastflow is a software library, and really neither a theory nor a new discovery, it is rather more an invention. Uncle G is a very good editor, but I think you're quoting an essay, yes, rather than a policy or guideline. Also, in that same essay, Uncle G states "Evidence that something has been acknowledged by people other than the subject's own proponents/creators/authors/inventors, and thus become a part of the corpus of human knowledge, is that sources from those other people also exist. Evidence that a source is correct is that other people have performed research in the same area, and published material that concurs." Now, please forgive me for being a bit long winded here, but while the sources we're looking at are academic and reviewed, the article is about a software product, not a theory or discovery--a framework used to process data. If you look at the sources that are not authored by the creators of the software packages, you'll note that these are about other subjects, not the fastflow software. So we do not have a situation here where independent parties have also found the subject of the article notable enough, at least not yet, to provide significant coverage. And I think that is a key point--in that last quote from Uncle G's essay suggests that independent sources are required, and that's parallel to the intent of WP:SPIP. --Nuujinn (talk) 01:42, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I'm really mystified by this last post; maybe I'm not the only one participant too much involved in this discussion (as I declared many times I'm part of the FastFlow team). FastFlow is not only a software library, at all. The FastFlow library is a software artifact developed to prove that the FastFlow methodology is sound and working. Cannot believe this is not yet clear. The FastFlow methodology brings in the scientific arena *several* new discoveries: one of those is how a multiple-producer-multiple-consumer queues can be implemented without any lock and without any interlocked operation. This has been considered *impossible* for long time now (to mention just one discovery). Maybe in this discussion is really lacking the opinion of an expert of the topic we are discussing. Moreover, even assuming - in very good faith - that people understanding is that FastFlow is just a library, then why looking academic articles as reliable sources? Is notability of software libraries established by academic, third-party articles and not download count, availability, maintenance, vitality, bug fixing readiness, are we reinventing software engineering discipline? I'm really afraid that discussion on notability issue is getting tangled up with the question of socking or other kind violation (that by the way has been separately discussed in proper places). I think any independent experienced editor coming here by change, is likely to get the same doubt. I say this because, IMO, a reasonable outcome of this discussion can be "1) the fastflow page needs several improvements, also finalized to explain the novel methodologies that have been published already in academic peer-reviewed articles, 2) these updates cannot be done by an editor that is in COI, as aldinuc for example, who should abstain to edit in this field" and not certainly that the fastflow topic is not notable. That's my very opinion. Thanks you all, anyway. Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 11:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you have just said above suggests not that the fastflow article exists, but rather that some of the material in this article belongs in a more general one on parallel processing or a related algorithm. Yes, "notability of software libraries [is] established by academic, third-party articles" which provide significant coverage, but in this case, there are not any to be found--only 3rd party passing mention and 1st party sources. If, as you say, there's a major new discovery based in fastflow, one would think someone else out there not associated with the software project would have written about it, but apparently that is not the case, at least not so far, and to be blunt, the lack of significant coverage by independent third parties in reliable sources is pretty much the only issue here. Perhaps that will happen soon, but in the meantime, I think we do not have a notable subject. Also, I don't know why you say "discussion on notability issue is getting tangled up with the question of socking or other kind violation" since we haven't talked about anything but notability for a while now. --Nuujinn (talk) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • With all the due respect, you are not introducing any new argument, just continuing to repeat the same argument increasingly loudly (as clearly shown by your usage of bold typeface, such an inelegance) in front of any new evidence that has been produced. As an example, you marked as "in passing mention" the one in link to article, an article that has a primary topic StochKit-FF (i.e. StochKit-FastFlow shortened, as it is perfectly clear reading the paper), and you never stepped back from this position. This suggests that your evaluation of "in passing mention" is, at least, questionable. Again with all the due respect, about the sock issue I mentioned, I just cited Nuujinn's thoughts (you) who is, up to my knowledge, an expert editor (here), and notice that the discussion at this point in time was already well developed (see here). Regards. Aldinuc (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sorry about the bolding, I started my standard Comment and got distracted. In regard to this article, I see that fastflow was used to build a new faster version of stochkit, but little about fastflow itself, hence my belief that it's passing mention. My main objection to using that as a reliable source, however, is that it is not from a 3rd party, and thus falls afoul of WP:SPIP. Yes, this is very repetitive--I'm trying to discuss these issues relative to WP policies, but not having much success, so I'll go do something else for a while. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Cotton

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

Educator with no evidence of notability. Battleaxe9872 Talk 23:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah M. Cotton-Paltiel, Shalom Horowitz Professor of Classics
which seems to be a named chair and The Hebrew University of Jerusalem is a major HE institution. (Msrasnw (talk) 19:40, 3 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Babylon Fire

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

Non-notable band. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. SnottyWong spout 23:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Thacker

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

Murderer/rapist who fails Wikipedia's notability policy for criminals - nothing other than routine coverage. Claritas § 22:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Born (film)

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

Born was a planned film that never reached production, and these plans do not have enduring notability, as reflected by the lack of retrospective coverage. Article was proposed for deletion in 2008 for this reason, but it was removed without explanation. Per WP:NFF, with this project never having started filming, it ought to be deleted. On the very unlikely off-chance that the project is somehow resurrected (as many are not) and begins filming, the article can be recreated. Erik (talk | contribs) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:48, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

's-Hertogenbosch Avenue 2 railway station

edit
's-Hertogenbosch Avenue 2 railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced stub failing WP:CRYSTAL. —fetch·comms 22:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eugène Cremmer

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

This page has had the tag "This biography of a living person does not cite any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is un-sourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately." applied to it for over a year and as the tag states, must be removed immediately. RedBlue82 talk 22:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was no consensus. Ignoring the "just unencyclopaedic" and the sockpuppet nominator, nobody is in favour of deletion but it seems nobody can make up their minds on exactly what to do with these articles. I'd suggest that furtherr discussion on merging/redirecting/listifying or anything other than deletion take place on a relevant talk page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:32, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transformers human characters batch nomination

edit

I am nominating the following articles on fictional humans within the Transformers franchise for deletion due to lack of significant independent coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability:

I believe that none of these articles satisfy the notability criteria and that the content within them is unverifiable using reliable secondary sources. Claritas § 21:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue with merging is that none of the information contained in these article can be verified by reliable secondary sources. Claritas § 22:41, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have books about anime that would verfy the existence of the anime characters. The characters like Doubleclouder or Go Shooter could easily redirect to a list of characters from the Masterforce anime. The ones from Marvel Comics to the Marvel Comics Transformers page, and Chip Chase, Marissa Fairborns and Lord C. should be on a list of characters from the 1984 Transformers TV series. Mathewignash (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Creating such a list would be a violation of Wikipedia's policy on primary sources, which states that it is inappropriate to create an article based only upon primary sources. A list is a type of article. Claritas § 10:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Courcelles 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Miller (South Carolina politician)

edit
AfDs for this article:
Rob Miller (South Carolina politician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete not yet. There is general consensus that as election candidates at this level are not notable. He may be notable if and when he gets elected. So far, what we have seen is no more no less the sort of coverage they receive for just standing - general interest in the election campaign. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree that candidates for the house are not generally notable; obviously, the "keep" argument here depends on the idea that Miller is atypical. I think that national coverage of his role in the fallout of the Wilson scandal combined with the greatly increased local attention caused by an unusually competitive race in a politically one-sided district separates him from the usual candidates. I also don't think the "crystal ball" clause applies, since the article makes clear that Miller is unlikely to win, and indeed one of the things that has attracted notice about him is the strength of his out-of-district support given the long-shot circumstances. It is possible to garner notability in the course of losing an election. Chick Bowen 20:41, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unlikely to win? He has led in several polls, though I don't know without further research how current they are. JTRH (talk) 16:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Major party candidate for national-level office with a good chance of election, plus previous history of the same, with significant press coverage. RayTalk 15:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. And if he doesn't there's always two years from now, and two years after that... (Editors tried to delete this two years ago for same reason).Student7 (talk) 22:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious Keep-- major party candidate for US Congress?? Of course he's notable. --Alecmconroy (talk) 22:32, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reading the above, it sounds like this specific race is a distinctly notable event, more than this guy is a notable politician. If this was a first-time run, then I would very strongly be arguing for delete (by way of converting the article to being about the race, with him as a sub-section) - but since it's apparently his second time around, he is perhaps 'notable' for more than a single event, and if so, should get his own article (just). See WP:INDISCRIMINATE under "who's who". ‒ Jaymax✍ 01:45, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I really dislike the entire argument that someone is inherently notable or non-notable because they belong to a class or category. Notability should be based on whether the subject has received significant coverage in reliable sources. Generally, I would expect reliable sources to give a lot of significant coverage to nominees from major political parties, and generally I would expect very little coverage of nominees from minor or fringe parties... but there will always be exceptions (in both directions) to this generalization. So the issue here should not be "Is a nominee from a major party inherently notable?" but should instead be "Has there there been significant coverage in reliable sources of this particular nominee?" Blueboar (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Wikipedia is not paper, we can afford to keep this, it meets GNG and is well-referenced. It will serve as a valuable reference for those researching political races. And a lot indicates he will continue to be covered by media. Danski14(talk) 18:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. This is not a minor party candidate; this is a serious race drawing secondary coverage. Racepacket (talk) 01:24, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cirt and Blueboar. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to United States House of Representatives elections in South Carolina, 2010#District 2. There is some significant newspaper coverage, but virtually all of it is primarily about his opponsent Joe Wilson - with Miller piggybacking onto Wilson's notoriety. Contrary to some statements made here, major party candidates for congress are NOT automatically notable - not if they have never held office or otherwise achieved notability, and not if the only coverage is about the election rather than about them. See WP:POLITICIAN: "Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".... In the case of candidates for political office who do not meet this guideline, the general rule is to redirect to an appropriate page covering the election or political office sought in lieu of deletion." See also WP:Common outcomes#People: "Candidates for a national legislature/parliament or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability." It could be argued that Miller has received significant coverage and thus rates a "keep", but he definitely does NOT rate an article simply for being a major party candidate for congress. Such articles get deleted here all the time. --MelanieN (talk) 00:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Relatively few of us are arguing that candidates are automatically notable; in fact I said above that I don't believe they are. If you read my argument, Cirt's, and others, you will see that we have indeed addressed why Miller is considerably more notable than the average candidate for office. I also would question your reading of the coverage; much of the coverage is about Miller's remarkable fundraising, which is undeniably a fact about him. Yes, that fundraising is assumed to have a relationship to Wilson's actions, but that doesn't make the coverage really about Wilson rather than about Miller; if I write a newspaper story about how pollution is affecting brook trout, it's a story about fish as much as or more than it is about pollution. Chick Bowen 02:15, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Does not fail WP:POLITICIAN because he passes the GNG. Specifically, he has won a Democratic nomination twice, so WP:BLP1E, the philosopical underpinning of the WP:POLITICIAN discounting of winning a single primary, does not apply. 141.156.160.217 (talk) 17:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as here, when we actually look for sources is will invariably be found that a major party nominee for a US senate seat is notable, by the GNG, and confirmed by common sense. The positions are of such enduring political significance, & therefore attract extensive national coverage of both possible senators. (This probably holda for the House of Representatives & state Governors, but the case is really clear for Senators.). DGG ( talk ) 01:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. nomination withdrawn and solid keep arguments put forward. This can be snowed as an obvious outcome Spartaz Humbug! 04:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert George Clements

edit
Robert George Clements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Criminal who fails WP:PERP - nothing other than routine coverage. Claritas § 20:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that such a small amount of coverage does not establish any particular significance. See the examples of notable criminals nbed at WP:PERP. Claritas § 10:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being alleged doesn't preclude being notable. Google books shows 22 mentions of this guy. This is far from the "small amount of coverage" that Claritas mentions. Bear in mind that some notable things are written about more in print than on the net. Note also that WP:PERP's third point is "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy". Here, the execution of the crime is clearly unusual or notable. Malick78 (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • He was a doctor using his medical knowledge and professional relationships to get away with murder. 22 books writing about it suggests others think that's unusual/noteworthy. Btw, I think morphine as a murder weapon was unusual back then, though it is perhaps less so now. Malick78 (talk) 13:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've now fleshed it out a bit more with the use of snippet views from Google books. It seems clear to me that a fuller article is possible if someone with access to the books in question works on it. I think, though, that even at this stage the books cited so far establish that there is a significant amount of information out there on this subject. Malick78 (talk) 13:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for being only "allegedly" a murderer, please note that he killed himself before capture and therefore there was no trial. A second post-mortem did however find that his fourth wife had died from a morphine overdose. Malick78 (talk) 11:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to The Saturdays. Content may be merged at editorial discretion. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Saturdays: 24/7

edit
AfDs for this article:
The Saturdays: 24/7 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication this reality series has yet recieved significant coverage in reliable third party sources Active Banana ( bananaphone 20:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep- The television series is not just a one night special or on a smaller network, to the contrary, it's actually on large network and has multiple parts. The series is significant and relevant as it is being aired at a time when the group is reaching near the top of the charts with both an album and a single and the series documents the times leading up to this. I would support the entire article in it's current format being merged but only after the series has aired in full and if at that time sources are still lacking.--Ckelly987 (talk) 22:43, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And can you provide significant coverage in reliable third party sources about the show? Until you can, it doesnt matter how many episode there are, it fails WP:N. If in the future this coverage does become available, then the article can be a stand alone.Active Banana ( bananaphone 14:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, are you seriously trying to compare Girls Aloud: Off The Record with The Saturdaus: 24/7? Off the Record followed Girls Aloud whilst they all embarked on seperate projects. 24/7 mainly consists of just trivial fan-cruft and follows their daily lives as a recording group (artist). Per WP:Other things exist don't use other articles as examples for what should or shouldn't exist unless there's discernable similarity. For what it's worth I've also nominated Jedward: Let Loose for deletion. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CRYSTAL we do not keep an unsupported article on the basis that "third party sources about it may show up sometime in the future." If there are no sources now, there is no article now. If sources show up in the future, then we have a stand alone article. Active Banana ( bananaphone 16:12, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
redirect - to the group. Off2riorob (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Galoot

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

Article which violates WP:NOTDIC - simply lists meanings of the word. Claritas § 20:54, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Shaktipat

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

shaktipat is a recent creation by the Siddha sect. More to come when I understand the appropriate format to submit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cognominally (talk • contribs)

*Delete as a non-notable neologism. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 22:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC) Keep The info given below establishes notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FYI Here is a non-sanskrit article using and discussing Shaktipat by name dated 1940: [6] (page 3). This predates Muktananda's self-documented receipt of Shaktipat in August 1947, so claims that he invented either the term or the process are demonstrably ill-founded. K2709 (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:36, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kamen Rider Dark Kabuto

edit
Kamen Rider Dark Kabuto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted after a proposed deletion remained uncontested for seven days. It was contested here by Ryulong and therefore reinstated by Explicit. While Explicit was correct to recreate the article since the proposed deletion was contested, the notability of this fictional character remains unestablished. The claims to notability as presented by Ryulong are that the character has been made into two action figures, has made an appearance in a television series outside the Kamen Rider franchise, and is a main character in the Kamen Rider Kabuto series. A fictional character's notability is not demonstrated by being made into action figures, making an out-of-context television appearance, or by being important within a fictional universe. Notability is demonstrated by "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources", something that this fictional character does not have. The two sources cited on the article do not constitute significant coverage and the second is a primary source. A search on Google Books and Google News reveals no additional coverage. Neelix (talk) 20:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

edit
AfDs for this article:
Eiffel Tower in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Minor and trivial references, no criteria for inclusion. Excessive, trivia, listcruft, etc. etc. Last AFD resulted in keep mainly on WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and "the Eiffel Tower is notable, so every single reference to it must be listed." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. WP:TRIVIA does not seem a valid argument for deletion here. In fact, the section titled "Not all list sections are trivia sections" explicitly states that only lists that are disorganized and "unselective" are trivia. However, information here is organized, both by date and by theme. It is also selective in that the Eiffel tower is the narrow theme. Moreover, this does not actually fall under any of the six types listed in WP:IINFO. The headings may seem to describe this article somewhat, but the description that follows those headings does not match the article. —CodeHydro 02:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I share my views with TomCat4680. Eiffel Tower is an important landmark of modern France, and it is very essential to present its varied appearances in popular culture to give one idea about the importance and impact it had had over the years...Cupidcobra1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:34, 7 September 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. A minute or so's searching finds the book Famous works of art in popular culture: a reference guide by Lynda Joy Sperling (Greenwood Press, ISBN 9780313318085, 2003) which has a chapter on the precise topic of the article, and more sources such as this and this. A couple more minutes finds The Eiffel Tower and Other Mythologies by Roland Barthes (University of California Press, ISBN 9780520209824, 1997) a book largely devoted to this topic. Anyone who wants to spend a few more minutes looking for sources will be sure to find rich pickings here and here. I find it very difficult to believe that any editor with the slightest knowledge of Western culture and anything approaching a "clue-bat" wouldn't realise how obviously this is a notable topic. Of course the article is in a pretty sorry state, and I wish that this type of article would be named "in culture", because I don't see why we should exclude unpopular culture, but deletion certainly won't do anything to help build this encyclopedia. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per TomCat4680 --Korruski (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Adequate sourcing available for most of this, and there are no other valid objections. Phil Bridger's work here should serve as an answeer who think that because something is popular culture, nobody will find decent sources for it. Material covering uses in notable works is not indiscriminate. Indiscriminate would be if it covered everything in the world that mentioned it, and thids is or should be limited to material significant in things notable enough for a Wikipedia article. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing inherently wrong with the list, its shortcomings are due to it needing to be improved and edited. Someoneanother 23:13, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn.[8] Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)a[reply]

Frank Kschischang

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

I do not believe that the subject passes WP:PROF. His job and being a fellow do not automatically generate notability. No other evidence is given, and searching Google News and Google Books provides no secondary coverage; Google Scholar gives plenty of publications, but those alone don't make for notability. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from WP:PROF (emphasis in original): "If an academic/professor meets any one of the following conditions ... they are notable. ... 3. The person is or has been an elected member of a highly selective and prestigious scholarly society or association (e.g. a National Academy of Sciences or the Royal Society) or a Fellow of a major scholarly society for which that is a highly selective honor (e.g. the IEEE)" Prof. Kschischang is a Fellow of the IEEE (among other organizations), as is clearly stated in the article. Therefore he satisfies the notability criterion. --S20451 (talk) 19:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But they select up to fifty fellows a year. That's not very selective. Drmies (talk) 19:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia policy is right there in black and white. Also, there's the EIC fellowship. So I'm not sure how to respond. --S20451 (talk) 19:53, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak delete, per nom and per failing PROF. I just dont think there is enough meat on the article, and insufficient sources. The IEEE membership is close to the prof requirement, but I think nom comment (if correct) about 50 fellows per year is pretty convincing. If more sources are added or he becomes the dean i am willing to maybe change vote WildHorsesPulled (talk) 21:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised, since the WP:PROF guidelines specifically state that IEEE Fellow status is sufficient to be notable. I have added some additional details to the article but will add no more, since I am now confused about the guidelines for "notability" and feel like I might be wasting my time. --S20451 (talk) 00:19, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Imagination (film)

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

Can't see how this film meets wikipedia notability criterea. As I read wp:film, there are two poss. arguments for notability of films, and this film meets none of them. These are: 1 “The film is widely distributed and has received full length reviews by two or more nationally known critics." This is clearly not met - esp. the second part. 2. "The film is historically notable, as evidenced by one or more of the following: Publication of at least two non-trivial articles, at least five years after the film's initial release. The film was deemed notable by a broad survey of film critics, academics, or movie professionals, when such a poll was conducted at least five years after the film's release. The film was given a commercial re-release, or screened in a festival, at least five years after initial release. The film was featured as part of a documentary, program, or retrospective on the history of cinema. The film has received a major award for excellence in some aspect of filmmaking. The film was selected for preservation in a national archive. The film is "taught" as a subject at an accredited university or college with a notable film program." This is also clearly not the case. Thus, the article should be deleted. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 19:10, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per reasonable though not overwhelming coverage. WP:NF is intended as a specialized version of WP:N, but that does not mean WP:N is inapplicable. What you quoted are "attributes that generally indicate, when supported with reliable sources, that the required sources are likely to exist", because some films, especially older ones, may not reflect their notability so readily in search engine results. I find the presence of reviews at Variety and Journal International to be a good indicator; we just may not be able to find additional references with an easy Google search. Actually, that might not be true... I found this just now with a little searching. It may be that this article will not be large in size, but I think there is sufficient material to sustain a minimal article. Erik (talk | contribs) 23:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment NF states clearly that "This page gives some rough guidelines intended to be used by Wikipedia editors to decide whether a film should or should not have an article on Wikipedia." Thus NF is the standard to be used and it is these that it fails. I agree that older films may not turn up in search engine hits, but this is a very recent film. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please read my note above. You've made an error in your incorrect use of inapplicable guidelines. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, NF gives rough guidelines that are intended to be used, which does not mean that "NF is the standard to be used". Bigger digger (talk) 23:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW, and based on the creator's other edits, looks to be part of a walled garden of blatantly non-notable self-promotion. Recreating as redirect to PetSmart. --Kinu t/c 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Smart

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

Book never published, WP:MADEUP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bart A. Baggett

edit
Bart A. Baggett (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable, with insufficient coverage in reliable sources. The only reliable source I can find is that he has analyzed handwriting for the New York Daily News in four articles ([10]). However Baggett is not the subject of those articles. There are no reliable sources about Baggett himself that I can find. Evil saltine (talk) 18:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Time to Run 2010 Tour

edit
Time to Run 2010 Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in WP:NM Keresaspa (talk) 18:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:50, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

European Tour 2009

edit
European Tour 2009 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Just another tour by a singer. The article does not satisfy the guidelines for concert tours set down in WP:NM Keresaspa (talk) 18:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete under G12. — ξxplicit 19:14, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Noodle Kidoodle

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

unsourced and no indication notability. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 18:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added a few references to the page Noodle Kidoodle. Don't remove it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cody5882300 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Phineas and Ferb (season 2)#ep101 (39a-d). Jujutacular talk 13:49, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phineas and Ferb: Summer Belongs To You!

edit
AfDs for this article:
Phineas and Ferb: Summer Belongs To You! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article fails notability criteria for television episodes. Theres too little out-universe information on the article (rantings and airing information), but this alone does not validate a standalone article. Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

James Allridge

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

Criminal who fails WP:PERP - received no more than routine coverage for a murderer. Claritas § 18:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Christman

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

Non-notable former Minor League Baseball player who only played in single A for two years in the 1980s. Adam Penale (talk) 17:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Nomination was withdrawn and nobody advocating delete. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Johnson (musician)

edit
Anthony Johnson (musician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unable to find any reliable sources independent of the subject to sufficiently establish notability. His song "Every Day is a Gunshot" is highlighted in the article but I can find no evidence that it charted anywhere or was nominated for any awards. The article also states that the song was used in the film The Bank Job, but I can find nothing to verify this. The score of the film doesn't contain it. The Wikipedia page for the film lists it as on the soundtrack, (as "Gunshot"), but that is unsourced and I can find no reliable sources to verify it. Even if it is on the soundtrack, without non-trivial coverage I do not believe the page passes WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. J04n(talk page) 17:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: now tidied up, sourced and expanded.--Michig (talk) 08:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Author requested deletion. Favonian (talk) 14:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Four (film)

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

Due for release in early 2011; very limited information available, and little evidence of notability; fails WP:CRYSTALBALL GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 17:27, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have only just opened the page and I am new to wikipedia so am, naturally, slow at collating and posting the necessary information about our film (Which is listed on imdb). My apologies if I've done things in the wrong order but If you gave me half a chance before leaping in with your size-nines I could have given all the information required. I now feel there is little point in wasting my time if all my hard work is to be deleted. This is cyber-bullying not editing. Jlang40 - new contributor. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

With the greatest respect, I think I've provided more than enough information and as WP:CRYSTALBALL is quite obviously being incorrectly applied, I'd like to remove the AfD notice at the top of Four (Film)'s page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jlang42 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The notice cannot be removed until the AfD discussion is closed. WP:CRYSTALBALL is not being "obviously incorrectly applied", it is a matter of interpretation whether or not this article passes it, and I have yet to see references providing significant enough insight into the film to warrant its own article into more information is available. The article currently contains long quotes bordering on copyright violations, providing little more than a commentary, which is not suitable for an encyclopaedia. I see little content in the article meeting the quote given by MichaelQSchmidt, "discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects" GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 09:05, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per others. While the director and the writer are not notable, the familiarity of the cast suggests to me that there will be additional coverage to establish its notability. In the meantime, I would recommend ensuring the article's neutrality due to the conflict of interest present. Editors may want to review John Langridge (director) and Paul Chronnell, for which there is no actual coverage of them, just the film itself. The people's articles, based on self-promotion and not any published personal background, ought to be deleted. If the film is a success and these people are covered more, then their articles can be restored. Erik (talk | contribs) 12:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The fact that it may be notable in the future doesn't mean that it should be kept now. Articles deleted due to WP:BALL can be freely recreated once more information is available and notability is shown to exist. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Buchtmann

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

Footballer who has yet to make a professional appearance, thus failing WP:NSPORT, and does not have enough coverage for WP:GNG. Alzarian16 (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (and now even he's not sure) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sale el Sol

edit
Sale el Sol (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I've been off-putting the AfD nomination but the more I think about it and the more I look at the sourcing there just isn't enough information here to justify the creation of the article. It is not notable per WP:NALBUMS because there isn't enough information for a detailed article. There is too much speculation e.g. recorded 2008-2010 and its quickly becoming a forum for speculation/recorded songs. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 16:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article has a cover, release date, confirmed tracks and a single. Just because there isn't that much information confirmed about the making of the album, etc. that isn't a reason for deletion. I also saw that you have removed the background section a few times, which would help building up the article. —ΣПDiПG-STΛЯT (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the background section because it is unsourced and WP:OR. The notability policy for albums also clearly states Separate articles should not be created until there is sufficient reliably sourced information about a future release. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 | talk2me 20:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This article is about an upcoming album and it should not be deleted as long as we're going to have news to expand the article from now until October 19, the day of the album release. About the current situation I think it's well redacted and it stands on good references. --Quaveren (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article is about a confirmed album and the following album has a release date, album cover art, confirmed tracks and at least one single. I think it should be kept. Though I find that there is much more info about this album that the article lacks... Jowkoul {talk} 14:43, 5 September 2010
  • Keep references about the release of this album, are now well confirmed.Too Shakira's official website confirmed the release of this album Sale el Sol. D6h !? 16:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where You Get Them At?

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

The result was: already had a valid BLPPROD, is now deleted. Fences&Windows 16:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Christiano Adamou

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

Unverifiable BLP: this google search results in almost no hits, and the only hits which do result, are taken from the wikipedia article. Non-notable individual, maybe even a hoax. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was withdrawn. [14] Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 16:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mirror Maze

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

Non-notable film. The film was never released under the title Mirror Maze, this is only the English translation of its working title. (see the IMDB AKA page) The released title was Proyecto Dos, and there does not seem to be any indication of notability. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Spanish title
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Actual English festival title
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) German title
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Spanish working title
    • Now in work for improvements. I will report back. As the film never had a release as Mirror Maze, the Find searches far above is absolutely worthless. However, under the alternate titles, the film does seem to have non-English coverage on non-English sites,[15][16] so I will be wroking on searches and translations. I hope to be able to show that WP:UNKNOWNHERE is not the deathknell for this article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:30, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep and continue improvements. Though (currently) without an article, director Guillermo Fernández Groizard is a notable and quite prolific television director in Spain,[17] and this film represents his feature film debut. And AS that debut, has gained attention and critical response in Spanish press. The article is undergowing a complete transformation and now receiving the attention it merits. So far, what began as this stub with a minor assertion of notability, is now THIS... with proper sourcing (and more coming). More to do certainly, but WP:NF has been met, and notability in Spain is perfectly fine for en.Wikipedia. And, as the nominator points out the article title is incorrect, I have moved the article and its histories to the proper and searchable title Proyecto Dos. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as article now passes notability criteria for films. Armbrust Talk Contribs 07:50, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn Thanks to MichaelQ for finding information about this film that I was unable to. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rafiq Gujar

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

Unable to find any reliable sources to verify the information in the article. Searched using the spelling of his name in the article and also Gujjar but only found this trivial mention. I haven't been able to figure out what the Urdu spelling of him name would be, but it would probably be helpful. With sources he could pass WP:POLITICIAN but without them he doesn't per WP:BASIC. Speedy deletion was been denied back in 2007. J04n(talk page) 15:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph A. Davis

edit
Joseph A. Davis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable individual lacking GHits and GNEW of substance. Appears to fail WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. ttonyb (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure. The Thing // Talk // Contribs 18:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Your mother/slap game

edit
The Your mother/slap game (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability, article is by the inventor of the game. Catfish Jim and the soapdish (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is the sort of article to which an admin should apply Ignore all rules and speedy delete. But that's just me. --Quartermaster (talk) 18:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. delete votes not strongly grounded in policy Spartaz Humbug! 04:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Eidolon (band)

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

Non-notable band per WP:MUSIC. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. NikFreak (leave message) 15:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Douglas Glynn Bolitho, MD

edit
Douglas Glynn Bolitho, MD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fairly obvious Resume/advertisement. {{Prod blp}} template removed by an administrator (as "inappropriate"). Appears to have published some papers, per primary/self-published source[20] -- no other evidence of notability. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

John Walter Parker, Jr.

edit
John Walter Parker, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is about an individual with no reliable sources to establish notability, and more importantly satisfy verifiability as this is a biography of a living person. The claim to notability is that Parker is first African-American Head of General Surgery in the US Air Force. However the only references supplied in the article are from a personal interview by Laura Castoro which does not appear to be published anywhere. A search for "Laura Castoro" lead me to this writer whose full name is Laura Parker Castoro which may indicate a conflict of interest, and original research if the article creator is also this writer. Whpq (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Essentially a speedy G11, and not remotely likely to be notable. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Neurosciences Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM)

edit
Department of Neurosciences Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

bad penny. I had it deleted per WP:CSD#G11 just two days ago, and it's back. The article is unsourced, and highly promotional. I'd be prepared to wager that the reinstated text is an exact copy of the deleted – though I'm not an admin, so I can't prove it. The article is still full of the peacock words and its tone remains unabashed and disgracefully promotional, even compared to the subject's website. All in all, the article is beyond redemption and should be deleted. Ohconfucius ¡digame! 14:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm an admin, and yes it is copied from the deleted version. Note the result of copying the table of contents: the present version of the article starts out with:
1 History 
2 Mission & vision 
3 Research 
4 Press Quotes in the early years of establishment 
5 References 
6 External links 
[edit] History
Easy to see that this is a crudely-done copy and paste. Nyttend (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:53, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fariyas Hotel Mumbai

edit
Fariyas Hotel Mumbai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested G11 CSD. Seems to be written by single purpose account. Blatant advertising language. Riddled with external links to the hotel's website some-what disguised as wiki-links. Torchwood Who? (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was nomination whitdrawn and no !votes for delete. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust Talk Contribs 18:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Voodoo Gods

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

Declined speedy. Band of questionable notability. Although some of the members of the band have notability in their own right this appears to be for other music projects, not this one. The article is unreferenced, and no indication is given as to whether they are even signed as a band with a record label. The band's website has had no "recent news" updated since May 2009. roleplayer 12:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Consensus is clear, and I agree also. One of the few times I concurr that a list limited to subject of notable Wikipedia articles is in fact not suitable,, because it is enormously too broad. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of public domain musical works

edit
List of public domain musical works (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have serious concerns with this claim: "this list [of musical works] is restricted to those which have a Wikipedia article." What about the non-existing articles about important and notable old compositions? I don't think Wikipedia should have an article covering public domain musical works selected by the presence in this project. I don't think Wikipedia should cover this topic at all, as there are thousands of compositions in public domain, and maintaining such a long list would be simply impossible. Projects such as IMSLP serve that purpose far better. Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(From my talk page) There shouldn't be any notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia articles and there shouldn't be any non-notable musical works which do have Wikipedia articles. The reason for the restriction is because otherwise it would contain be thousands of compositions, as you said. Just because another website has information on something does not mean Wikipedia should not bother. Our list is more accessible. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Of course there are plenty of notable musical works which don't have Wikipedia article, this is not a perfect world. Any list based solely on the presence of the subject on Wikipedia is inappropriate, in my opinion. I have no problem with the List of public domain tangos, but this topic is too broad for a single list. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 11:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give me an example of a notable musical work that does not have a Wikipedia article? It's highly unlikely, given all the non-notable bollocks that gets deleted from Wikipedia every day, that someone would have overlooked an important musical work. There are articles on every composition by Beethoven, Mozart etc. There are plently of articles on very minor things so it's unlikely someone would have missed out something notable. McLerristarr / Mclay1 11:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can give you hundreds of examples, Mclay1. Do you really think that this encyclopedia is completed? Uff ... I miss all the beautiful recorder concertos by Vivaldi, ranked among the most important works of the recorder repertoire, but this is unimportant. --Vejvančický (talk | contribs) 12:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "works" is not defined, and i dont think can be defined. If the list is of classical scores, they are all well documented on other lists. Even when limiting it to classical works, the list is too broad, and the nightmare of trying to determine which more recent works have become public domain is daunting. we have List of films in the public domain in the United States and List of public domain tangos which have a smaller scope, and are referenced. List of TV series with episodes in the public domain is an example of a poorly thought out list (as this is also), as it has no references and the target articles may not mention public domain status. It seems the use of such a list has to do with more recent creative works, where the issue of public domain is not always settled obviously. of course, its a trivial act to list all the notable classical pieces more than 100 years old, but why? that would essentially duplicate any lists of non-modern classical works. PS if its saved, the criteria for having a WP article should be stripped from the lead and placed as hidden text. usually, stand alone lists can have redlinks if the link has a reference showing notability, but i doubt we have many not written up yet.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'Musical works' is used many times on Wikipedia, including in article and category names. It has an obvious meaning. The list has no references because no sooner had I created, it was already nominated for deletion. I had no chance to get any references. The 9 current list items are definitely in the public domain, I don't think anyone would argue otherwise. List of films in the public domain in the United States is exactly the same concept as this list, only for films rather than music. I don't see the difference. Films enter the public domain every year and that list is very far from complete. Old musical works are also far more noteworthy than old films. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:33, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; no way could we ever narrow this enough to a reasonable list. The name is way too broad. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 17:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The number of musical works in the public domain is just colossal, for instance, most of the canon of classical music would qualify. Even sticking to well-known works, the list would become so long as not to be useful to anyone. May I courteously suggest to User:Mclay1 that finding just one single composer and making sure his/her works are all documented on WP would be a far more useful task? Opus33 (talk) 23:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in classical music. I just saw an opportunity for a very useful list, such as very similar ones that are already in existence. McLerristarr / Mclay1 13:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Spartaz Humbug! 04:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Itzhak Bentov

edit
Itzhak Bentov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article contains ridiculous claims "His innovative research and theory on Kundalini is still, more than 30 years after its formulation, widely recognized as the best of its kind - and still at the cutting edge of alternative research of methods for Central Nervous System rehabilitation and of mind-body connections."

Come on. Kundalini as a therapy?

"Active Kundalini comprises homogeneous arrangement of electrical duo-poles in the area of the brain connected to the CNS, making that area a conducting material rather than a semi-conductor." WTF?!? What are semiconductors in the context of the brain? Other material does not make enough sense to allow any serious discussion

"The universe is a hologram. The brain is a hologram interpreting a holographic universe." Yea, right. Whatever that means.

I doubt that any serious and successful scientific work has been done on kundalini that is an esoteric concept. Show me any scientific reference by reputable authors with reproducable procedures. Unsubstanciated superlatives like "widely recognized", "widely accepted" and "cutting edge" for stuff that is mere mumbo jumbo is a disgrace to wikipedia. Cognominally (talk) 10:25, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and clean-up - per significant coverage: [21], [22], [23] etc. He's a pseudoscientist, but a notable one. I'll tag the article for rescue, and tag for neutrality issues. Claritas § 18:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not notable. Of the refs posted, 2 are passing mentions in copies of basically the same article, 1 is from a firm selling his books. The refs above are not much better, only 1 of the three books mention him more than once, the other 2 mention him in passing (once each, with an additional footnote mention). GregJackP Boomer! 20:19, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Claritas . Bentov's ideas are far out but he has been influential in some areas of thought. Google Scholar throws up 166 mentions of his work. [24]. Lumos3 (talk) 22:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he is a pseudoscientist like Claritas said. His ability to attract attention or to make business out of it is irrelevant. Judging by the wikipedia article, his holistic statements are non sensical. Statements to which can be assigned a meaning are clearly invalid scientifically. Thx to Claritas to help me to set up this page. Cognominally (talk) 22:49, 2 September 2010 (UTC) It does not passes WP:BIO criteria that states at the very beginning that there is a need for "secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent and independent of the subject." This is hardly the case here. Cognominally (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Shown to be sourceable, but it would have been MUCH better if the sources had actually been added to the article during the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball blackout policy

edit
Major League Baseball blackout policy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No sources for two years NDState 05:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Not only unsourced, but is covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy CTJF83 chat 06:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason that this is "covered at Mlb#Blackout_policy" is because this is a sub-page of MLB. It is not a content fork, but a page established to keep the original page from becoming overlong and thus unreadable. Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - The question here is not whether the sourcing of this article is good. It is not. AfD is not designed to eliminate legitimate articles for the reason of inadequate sourcing, those are to be improved by further editing. The question here isn't even whether this topic is "notable" in Wikipedia terms (even though it clearly is) since this is a sub-page of Major League Baseball established for technical reasons to keep the main article short. In fact, there is no reason for this article to have been challenged in the first place... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Carrite unsourced is not a reason for deletion. Derild4921☼ 15:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Lack of sourcing is not a reason for deletion. The summary at MLB is a short snippet of the page. If something is on this page but not on the other, then it should be kept.--LAAFan 20:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Unsourced articles are not necessarily candidates for deletion unsourceable articles are. What I think the other keep !voters are saying is "we all know that this exists, so don't try to tell us that you followed WP:BEFORE and couldn't find anything." Article can certainly be cleaned up, of course, but AfD is not for cleanup. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per Carrite and Jclemens. Of course, sources should be added but there is no time limit. Rlendog (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop defending the article for it to be deleted, sourcing does exist for the policy, being unreferenced isn't a reason for deletion unless no references can be sourced, or the references are too local where WP:NOT#NEWS applies, unreliable, or passing mentions. Secret account 04:06, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Take a look at WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence. The material has been challenged, the challenge has not been met.. hence delete it. It is lacking a reliable source and none of you have proven otherwise. I looked and looked and looked and there are no reliable sites verifying the majority of the claims in the article. NDState 06:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The material shouldn't have been challenged in the first place. It's a frivoulous and ill-considered nom. Challenging perfectly sourceable and notable content with the hopes that it will be deleted based on WP:BURDEN is the saddest form of deletionism because it is NOT improving Wikipedia, it's destroying it. </rant> -- œ™ 04:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm glad as an admin, you can AGF, with a relatively inexperienced user. CTJF83 chat 04:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes my comments were harsh, and were only out of frustration, and directed at deletionism in general not necessarily this user. I understand the user is doing what they think is right. As far as inexperience goes, I had no idea. Based on their comments here they show a very capable knowledge of policy. -- œ™ 04:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Thank you OlEnglish for so quickly belitting me, someone very new with wikipedia policy. Its comments like this that run participation away. If this nomination was so frivolous and ill-considered please explain how. All of you keep claiming to have all of these great reliable sources, yet I have not seen any that are considered reliable by wikipedia policy. If its perfectly source-able why has no reliable sources been found or added that support most of the material?? I am glad that I am supposedly just out to delete wikipedia and make it worse. Funny, I was just trying to help out. I saw an article that had been tagged as not having sources for two years and there were still no sources. I sought out reliable sources that would substantiate the claims in the article and could not find any. I thought the correct action was to move to remove it as it appeared to be original research. I studied wikipedia's policies and found that my course of action was justified, based on WP:BURDEN, etc. But all it seems is people are getting in a tizzy over it. These same people still have not provided reliable sources. I wonder whom here is trying to improve wikipedia and whom is trying to destroy it. NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I honestly assumed you were an experienced editor, sorry if you felt belittled. I was in a rather crunchy mood up there. The point I wanted to make is that if an article CAN be verified then it shouldn't be deleted only because someone hasn't sourced it yet. Unsourced articles should be tagged as such, that's why we have the {{unreferenced}} tag. If, as you say, you looked for sources and sincerely couldn't find any to support any of the claims, then taking it to AfD was the correct course of action. However, I do believe this content is verifiable, source reliability notwithstanding, notable, and fills a gap in Wikipedia's coverage of the subject. Any original research can be edited out. And if that means stubbifying it then so be it. -- œ™ 20:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Definitely notable subject. Last I checked, we didn't have a deadline on articles. Cleanup requests aren't a valid reason to delete. Vodello (talk) 04:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are no sources. According to WP:Verifiability#Burden_of_evidence the burden of evidence lies in the editor that added the material. Since they clearly have not provided the sources it most certainly qualifies for deletion. The material was challenged two years ago through the use of a tag and it was not responded to and the issue was not fixed, hence the burden of evidence has not been met. Additionally, according to that same page: "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references. It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources yourself that support such material, and cite them." The editors have been given ample time. Additionally, I searched for reliable sources and was not able to find any in regards to the majority of the article. Furthermore, Wikipedia policy states that material that fails to be verified can be deleted. Proper process was followed requesting sources, none were added... it can and should be deleted. NDState 04:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • [32] Secret account 14:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sourcing is possible, as demonstrated by Secret's link above and short GNews searches ([33] [34]). Simply because no one has done it until now does not mean the article should be deleted. See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE which both say that any article that can be improved through editing is ineligible for deletion (based on those concerns). Regards SoWhy 07:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most of the "sources" listed do not substantiate the claims made in the article, especially the map. I would still like to see these sources all of you keep talking about (and no they cannot be blogs or copies of this article on other sites, per wikipedia policy). NDState 02:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • If parts of the article cannot be sourced, remove them per WP:V. But to justify the deletion of the whole article, it needs to be completely unverifiable, not only in parts. If it parts of it can be sourced, as demonstrated above, it's no longer a question of deletion but of editing. Regards SoWhy 18:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Would you please explain to me how, in the examples above, the claims in the wiki article were verified??? They dont support 90+% of them! I suppose there are some decent links above, but much is still unsourcedNDState 22:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 19:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

150 wins 150 saves

edit
150 wins 150 saves (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per discussion here, this list of two people isn't notable enough to be its own page, but should be a footnote on the Wins and Saves pages. Muboshgu (talk) 04:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 04:05, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Rospars

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

He works for the government. Can't see that he's done anything actually notable. Is there anything else? Unreferenced and has been subject to a bit of a WP:COATRACK about some Irish controversy (removed previously by others). The-Pope (talk) 14:39, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. He was interviewed as part of a show called "digital giants". Slight and subtle difference. Most of those refs from Gnews are comments by him about others. Very few are truly biographical about him. He is borderline notable and he's taking the spin industry into a "new direction" but to me it's still just a job that is a bit higher profile than most, but still not, in my mind, subject to non-trivial coverage of HIM (not of his work or his comments). If it ends up keep I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but as long as the best of those refs make it into the article, I'll be happy. The-Pope (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But we still don't know it from just a google news list. Which of the "refs" actually provide information about Joe and which ones are just trivial mentions of his name in an article?The-Pope (talk) 05:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All the coverage I can find is basically either "Rospars was Obama's New Media Director", with no biographical information, or "Joe Rospars said..." and a quote from him. I could not find significant coverage of him which did more than confirm his post. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The title might need changing, but that aside the consensus is to keep this article. Hopefully someone will find sources, and update this article! -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:17, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

F.C. Internazionale Milano vs. Italian clubs

edit
F.C. Internazionale Milano vs. Italian clubs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; the article mainly consists of the head-to-head records between clubs (an unencyclopedic topic as is) and contains no prose ("Excessive listing of statistics"); also contains no references nor external links, and would be difficult to maintain 100% (it hasn't itself been updated since November 2009). Azzurre (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't necessarily oppose a merge... referring to Luton Town, is it really at all significant that they've gone 2-1-1 against Royal Ordnance Factories F.C., a club that hasn't been around since 1896? I understand the "Luton has one, so it makes sense for Inter to, also" argument, but the degree some of them go to is absurd. But looking at these charts, the information is just... trivial. A merger into F.C. Internazionale Milano honours, records and statistics (as a straight-forward sortable table) makes much more sense to me than a stand-alone article.
Of course, all of that would STILL need a source; the current article doesn't have a reference to anything. I don't know where one could be found online. Surely, there are some in print somewhere (most likely in Italian), but either way, those numbers would need to be confirmed. And of course, those numbers would be changing every time Inter played a match. And considering this article hadn't been updated since 22 November 2009, as I said in the beginning, there's even more work that would need to go into it to get it current.
Is there anybody who would care to take on that project? The fact that it hadn't been updated in nine months leads me to believe that there isn't. (But that's not a fair argument for an AfD, I know, but I'm just making that point.) Azzurre (talk) 22:44, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep along the same lines as Sandman. The Luton list has previously been AfD'd and kept, and it would therefore be entirely wrong to delete this more important one (before I'm accused of tribal digs, it's more important than any potential Watford one would be as well). I'm not opposed to a merge, but if that is the result, it should be applied universally. --WFC-- 17:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis

edit
2010 Discovery Communications headquarters hostage crisis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTNEWS; does not appear to have any major consequences (hostages freed, gunman killed) and no lasting notability. —fetch·comms 03:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. This is an ideologically motivated crime which is, of course, the real reason why assorted Gorebots on this page want the article to disappear under various formalistic pretexts. The ideology - the pernicious idea that humans are a useless burden on the planet - lives on. James Lee was expressly cited - together with the Unabomber - as an extreme example of a wider school of murderous ideology in an opinion piece in the Telegraph newspaper in London, and will remain a historic reference point of homicidal global warmism. WikiFlier (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now it should be deleted then redone in about five days then we will have more information about the matter user mcdonaldsman —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.45.166.28 (talk) 14:59, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait one week...the event is not even 12 hours old. The New Raymie (t • c) 03:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Shirley, you must be joking. It's true that "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia" but this is clearly notable if you look at the cited references, which are sure to grow as more information is published. See Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Criminal_acts: "media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on reliable sources." Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 03:28, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:PERPETRATOR which states "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual or has otherwise been considered noteworthy such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally the historic significance is indicated by persistent coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources that devote significant attention to the individual's role." Tiptoety talk 03:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now "most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion" - if this develops into an event with lasting notability, we can restore or recreate the article at that time. Triona (talk) 03:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You're taking that way out of context. Let's continue with the very next sentence of that policy: "For example, routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia." This is not routine reporting about announcements or sports. What WP:NEWS means is that we shouldn't include coverage of every VFW pancake breakfast and every little league team that wins a trophy. It does not mean we shouldn't have articles about events that are covered in depth by every major media outlet in the country (and possibly the world). Kafziel Complaint Department 06:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    For fuller context, NOTNEWS also refers to the "enduring notability of persons events" [emphasis mine]. Just because news stations report events in the hope that they will capture the next Oklahoma City bombing or R. Budd Dwyer, that doesn't mean that breaking news reporting is always notable. Time will tell. Location (talk)
  • Keep What's the rush? There's no deadline. The encyclopedia is not harmed by the inclusion of this article, people are searching for this, and we can and should wait a few more days to assess the lasting notability of this event. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On-the-fence-delete First, could WP:N/CA be any less helpful of a guideline? My personal yardstick for these incidents is that if only the perp died, then it's not going to be notable—it will fade from the public memory in due time. Though the perp's history with Discovery makes for a more interesting story, I don't think that the story will get legs. See, I just naturally called "it" a "story", not an "event" or "shooting" or anything... --Livitup (talk) 05:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:N/CA. A crime is confirmed to have occurred (obviously), and worldwide media coverage[37][38][39][40][41] confers notability. Are people really suggesting that the fact that the hostages were rescued makes it less notable? Kafziel Complaint Department 06:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Raoul Moat, Cho Seung-hui - they are similar situations and they redirect to the appropriate article, which both have stayed on Wikipedia. Superchrome (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep seems notable enough to me.  Grue  07:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I say we keep the article and ban the deletionist asshole who nominated this article for deletion. Xizer (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hourick likes this!--Hourick (talk) 15:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Xizer, lets keep it civil please. Tiptoety talk 19:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is that your only reason to vote delete? Superchrome (talk) 08:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The police kill the perpetuator. This is rare elsewhere in the world and hostage taking is too. This makes it worth noting. 07:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:54, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of articulated bus systems

edit
List of articulated bus systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list won't ever be finished because it encompasses a broad subject that lacks notability. The article currently lists 10 systems in South America, with no content for systems in Europe, North America, Asia, or Africa. The article had been created in June 2007, but the original creator stopped editing an hour after its creation, and only four more systems have been added since then. Apollo1758 (talk) 03:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Nothing the WP considers notable DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Travis Busch

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

This unreferenced BLP has been around for over two years. A quick google search verifies all the information on this page, but it also told me he averaged less than six points a game in his senior season at Colorado State. It also doesn't appear as if he's signing a professional contract. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep. Several editors have taken an interest in rescuing and improving the article, including the addition of two verifiable references that indicate significance of numbers in Hindu scripture. Whether to merge this to the article on Hindu units of measurement can be discussed on the article's talk page. Mandsford 17:56, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]


List of numbers in Vedas

edit
List of numbers in Vedas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable trivia. Suggest redirecting to Hindu units of measurement. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I know that this article was made by a problematic, and now blocked, user but there is a valid subject here or somewhere around here. I wouldn't call it trivial, at least not all of it. The use of numbers in various holy books is a subject of valid interest. That said, we don't have List of numbers in the Bible (or anything similar), so maybe this isn't the right way to approach it. Given the poor quality of the article it is very tempting to look for existing, better, coverage and to redirect to that. I was the first person to redirect it to Hindu units of measurement but Redtigerxyz thought that was a poor fit and thought deletion was better. He explained why on my talk page and I can see his point about the redirect. The trouble is that none of the possible redirects seems to cover the whole subject. Hindu units of measurement is mostly just about units. Hindu cosmology is a good fit for some parts but not all of it is about cosmology. Indian mathematics also covers the subject but only very briefly. There is no obvious single redirect target but deletion is not obvious either, which is why PROD got removed. In the meantime we are left with an unsourced article that lacks context or a coherent limit to its remit. There are a lot of numbers in the Vedas and a complete list would include a lot of trivia. Is it rescuable? I don't know, but I am inclined to give it a chance. I !vote neutral, for now, and will tag it for rescue. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article lacks references that establishes its notability. Prsaucer1958 (talk) 11:51, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I undid DanielRigal's "edit of redirecting it to Hindu units of measurement as the current article covers much more than Hindu units of measurement. It also wrongly claims the Vedas elaborate on details of Hindu cosmology like the mention of the lokas such Patala, which are not found in the Vedas, but in the later Puranas. I am not sure from where "Number of species of birds" etc. is derived" ... "The title has no context and limit. The Vedas have numerous figures. "List of numbers in Vedas" does not only cover Hindu units of measurement, so a redirect is not proper IMO." (Copy-paste from my discussion with DanielRigal on his talk). --Redtigerxyz Talk 15:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How do you feel about renaming the article? Facts on how the Hindu religion mentions .... size of the universe, number of species of everything, distance between events and locations? This information should be somewhere. The Padma Purana is where the number of birds is listed as a million. Page six [42] says that, they showing the original text and the translation. Lot of places have that information [43] Not sure if there is one that list the exact page/chapter/section/verse/whatever the original source mentions that in. Dream Focus 20:45, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, the facts about the universe etc. can be included in Hindu cosmology. It is inaccurate to say that these facts are in the Vedas, they are in the Puranas. Even if the article is moved, even then the redirect List of numbers in Vedas needs to be deleted. I am copy-pasting the facts found by Dream Focus in the Hindu cosmology page. --Redtigerxyz Talk 16:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This information isn't just about the measurement system. It list specific information about their religion, such as how large the Universe is, how many kinds of material bodies for soul in material world, and other things. Searching Hindu text for the number and the name of what is mentioned, should instantly find references for each entry. If you sincerely doubt something, then tag it with a [citation needed]. Dream Focus 20:29, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid risking OR or SYN it would help to find an RS that already covers this subject apart from the primary sources. I don't doubt that there are some but they have not come to light yet. We need to cast this in a way that has a clear and limited remit so that the list does not become unmanageable or arbitrary in what it includes. If we could find some secondary sources on the subject that might point us in the right direction. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just did a bit of Googling and the search term "numbers in the Vedas" turns up some stuff. I have put a findsources link at the top. I haven't looked at the results in detail. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Most of this article is unsourced nonsense. Supposed measurements include "Dimension of soul", "Number of human species", "Number of planetary systems in /this/ material world", "Covering of the universe", etc. etc. etc. None of this even means anything, and certainly none of it is sourced. Even if you can find a source for some of it, it is doubtful you could prove that any of this is notable information. SnottyWong chat 22:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Religious claims can often seem nonsensical to people not from that religion but the religious claims of the major world religions are notable and significant and hence need to be covered. The Christian Trinity is perceived as nonsense by most non-Christians, and even many Christians struggle to make sense of it, yet its notability is not in question.
The main secular interest in this subject is that it shows an interest in dealing with very large numbers and in describing all aspects of the world with numbers long before most other societies and hence sets the stage for later significant Indian advances in mathematics. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We have gathered a few delete votes, so clearly some people think deletion is better than a redirect. I think we have to let this run its course now. --DanielRigal (talk) 08:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I meant to delete the history, and then redirect it anyway, but I also needed to see who wanted deletion, so that's why I initiated the discussion. (Maybe, this should be "Articles for discussion" much like TfD is to templates.) :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 13:09, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a start at addressing this. I have put a brief contextual paragraph on the front. I have linked all the phrases and tagged for clarification where the terms seem particularly unclear. Many of the links are red, suggesting that they are non-standard terms/spellings. I have also slapped a "citation needed" on all the items. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal: OK. I am coming off the fence. Here is what I propose:
  1. Move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures (to address the issue of not all this stuff being in the Vedas at all)
  2. Reformat the list with 4 columns: Property, Number or measurement, Book, Chapter and verse. (that covers sourcing for each item)
How does this sound? --DanielRigal (talk) 16:25, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Hindu units of measurement (and probably move to List of numbers in Hindu scriptures as suggested by Daniel above). Without references to establish verifiability or notability, this seems the best option. utcursch | talk 04:19, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the article as it now stands - and see lots of red links (not in itself a bad thing, it could encourage people to write new articles - but in this case, there seems too many of them!) and lots of citation needed (in fact, almost all of the numbers here are unreferenced). If an expert in the Vedas wants this userfied until they can source it, all well and good - but failing that, I see nothing to indicate that this is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia at this time -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rama Ekadashi

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

No refs, does not indicate notability. There are lots of other days out there. See Putrada Pausha-shukla Ekadashi for a similar rationale. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Monster Trux: Arenas

edit
Monster Trux: Arenas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 01:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against a speedy renomination in case the article does not improve (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Offroad Extreme! Special Edition

edit
Offroad Extreme! Special Edition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 01:37, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against speedy renomination (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki Snowmobiles

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

No references or sources listed in the article and is a stub. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 01:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. No prejudice against speedy renomination if the article does not improve soon. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mini Desktop Racing

edit
Mini Desktop Racing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references or sources listed in the article. The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive (already nominated by another user for deletion), who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 01:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 10:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Urban Extreme

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

The only notable thing about this game is that it was made by Data Design Interactive, who is infamous for making games that receive very negative reception. Nilocla ♈ ☮ 01:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Showbread (album)

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

This is a bundled nomination of the following articles:

These unreferenced articles are all permastub track listings of out-of-print albums that were either self-released or released by a small independent label, and none of them charted. Note that this nomination doesn't include articles on some of the later albums by this band which are still in-print and were released by larger, more notable labels. The current mention at Showbread discography is sufficient. SnottyWong babble 18:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courcelles 01:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heart of a Champion Foundation

edit
AfDs for this article:
Heart of a Champion Foundation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

American charity. Article clearly written by someone with a COI. Not sure of notability or precedents. Spatulli (talk) 22:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Both the commenting editors have suggested 'Weak Keep'ing the article. I expect the article to improve in the near future; if it does not, this current Keep closure has no prejudice against renewed AfDs in the near future. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ ―Œ ♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣ 03:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Chennai Silks

edit
The Chennai Silks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I almost tagged this one as a speedy A7, but it was referenced by The Hindu. However, the reference appears to be only a press release. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating

Pothys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 19:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep for both. Both are leading clothing stores in Tamil Nadu and have had significant continuous coverage in Tamil media (enough to satisfy GNG). But since the coverage is not online i am qualifying the keep with a weak. Let me try and find Tamil media references for both articles. If i am able to do so, will strike the "weak".--Sodabottle (talk) 06:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage for Pothys : [51], [52], [53], [54], [55] , [56], [57], [58]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Borislow

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

This is a person who probably meets notability requirements for inclusion, but this article has been a magnet for COI/promotional editing. I've found some sources in a Google search that establish his notability, but none of the sources on the article at present are third-party, reliable sources about this individual. I'm only advocating delete here on the grounds of blow it up and start over. —KuyaBriBriTalk 20:44, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WP:TNT is an interesting essay but it's just an essay. We need to decide on whether or not to keep this article by weighing it against WP:N. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think WP:TNT has a lot of merit, and might even be a template for what should become policy. Too much of the copyright and BLP discussions ignore common sense and [in my opinion] the law, by allowing otherwise problematic material to remain widely accessible. TNT, without knowing it probably, solves both of these problems and has definite efficiency. That said, this is not the forum to discuss that (although if you find that forum please tell me on my talk). This is a widespread product, has references, and I don't think the page as it is now is overly promotional. Shadowjams (talk) 06:42, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it
  1. His first phone companies didn't really do anything notable except make money and lots of MLM companies in the 1990s used long-distance re-selling and didn't do anything interesting and that doesn't make him notable.
  2. His horses have done well but not well enough and that doesn't make him notable.
  3. He invented MagicJack and that is an interesting thing but if notability is not inherited and sources don't discuss him as a primary topic because of doing this thing and that doesn't make him notable.
Strike 3 you are out. 207.81.170.99 (talk) 06:42, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep A successful horse breeder and inventor, this is only at Afd because it's poorly written? Come on guys. I will be rewriting this article over the next couple days. ~EDDY (talk/contribs/editor review)~ 01:58, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Seems to be clearly over the notability bar as an entrepreneur and inventor. Just because an article is written poorly has no bearing on the basic question, that of whether a subject is worthy of inclusion. Carrite (talk) 02:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- seems sufficiently notable as a company founder and partial/complete inventor of a notable telecommunications technology. Article is decently sourced, and notability is demonstrated in several of those sources. N2e (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keana Texeira

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

No significant sources, no indication of importance. All kinds of myspace/twitter/etc "references" that just do not qualify. Also, this appears to be an autobiography. — Timneu22 · talk 01:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 01:55, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger Than Life (album)

edit
Bigger Than Life (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Violates WP:CRYSTAL as a not noteable future album with no release date, cover or tracklist Red Flag on the Right Side 00:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. per consensus--lacks 3rd party RSs & unlikely to ever have them DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

IEEE AlexSB

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

Student organisation with no indication of notability. No independent references. noq (talk) 00:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Doane

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

Directed a couple movies that don't have articles and don't seem to be notable. Has several music video credits, but only sources found online were trivial — all I could find was "Darren Doane directed the music video for X" and nothing else. The only third-party sources in this article are similarly trivial or primary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:10, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Worth keeping for his work on Collision alone, but has a long career in B-Movies and music video. Nominated for 2010 best video director at the CMT Music Awards for example.yorkshiresky (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

10,000 Days Tour

edit
10,000 Days Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable concert tour. Article is a list of tour dates that should be reserved for fan sites. No sources to establish notability as per WP:GNG or WP:MUSIC. Nouse4aname (talk) 10:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC) Also nominating[reply]

2009 Summer Tour (Tool) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for the same reason. References provided on this article discuss festivals that form part of the tour dates, and do not establish notability or significant coverage of the tour itself.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator said per issues with notability.--Brave Dragon 00:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)This user is blocked as a sock puppet of a banned user — Gavia immer (talk) 04:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Data Design Interactive

edit
Data Design Interactive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A video game company known for their extremely poor set of games that are usually under-rated (like 0.7/10, etc). The citation "it is possibly the longest established entertainment development company in the world" clearly needs a source. I don't know if that makes the company more notable or not. What else makes this company notable? /HeyMid (contributions) 18:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 05:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Cantelon

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

Not notable outside Christian groups. Has had no main stream success, and is signed to minor independent record labels. Andrew Duffell (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You can't rely on ghits for notabilty. To establish notabily here, the sources need to be directly linked to the article contents. No ghits in the current coverage has links to the article. So don't count as sources to establish notability. All the past coverage ghits only discuss Ben only in his pastoral duties. In summary, there is no single primary source that makes this article notable. If I'm sounding harsh, then sorry. scope_creep (talk) 22:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're not sounding harsh at all--you're sounding like you don't understand what WP:GHITS or WP:N actually says. Sources that exist don't have to be added into the article to demonstrate notability--"notability" exists per topic based on RS coverage of that topic, not whether or not extant RS coverage is currently reflected in the article. Jclemens (talk) 05:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- Cirt (talk) 05:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DDC-I, Inc.

edit
DDC-I, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I don't know if this is even notable. HeartOS is not even notable; do we have any more references outside of four that it has as well as a Wikipedia article that is used as an external link? みんな空の下 (トーク) 21:04, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thirty years. 1980 was thirty years ago. It only seems like forty. Age is not really much of a criteria, and conversely one might say they've had thirty years to attain notability and haven't. It's true that sources must be hard to find: four links are given as references. Two are dead. One is a brief press-release type article in Dr. Dobbs. One is more a real article, at Embedded Computing Design. Both the non-dead links are mostly about product releases, not about the company. Per WP:CORP, "[A]ttention solely from... media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability". Herostratus (talk) 03:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_September_2&oldid=1142639611"