Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 20 - Knowledge (XXG)

Source 📝

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Tone 22:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company. Article created by what appears to be a marketing company. Prod template deleted by new user that has not dome anything but edit for this company and only appeared after the initial prod. noq (talk) 23:48, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 22:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge (XXG) is not a crystal ball. Durova 22:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Article is well sourced, all information in the article is verifiable via the references. This article does not violate WP:Crystal the same way The Resistance (album) doesn't. From Crystal: we do and should have articles about notable artistic works. Metty (talk) 23:43, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Everything in this article has been verified through reliable sources (with an exception for the three Twitter sources, which could be replaced). The guideline at WP:NALBUM states "generally, an album should not have an independent article until its title, track listing and release date have all been publicly confirmed by the artist or their record label." All of which have been confirmed. Fezmar9 (talk) 23:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete or possibly Userify because it is likely that this may achieve notability after the album is released. I don't agree with the "not a crystal ball" rationale for deletion--there's nothing wrong with covering albums before they're released--but only if they're notable. I don't think this is notable. From what I see, NoiseCreep is essentially a blogging site, hardly a reliable source usable to establish notability. The other sources may be legit (I don't really know, I could be convinced otherwise) as sources, but the articles cited are extremely brief and do not seem to come close to the sort of "significant coverage" required to establish notability. I think the creation of this article was jumping the gun. I would support userifying it though...with the idea that it could be restored later if it becomes notable. I think the NALBUM cited is giving an example of something necessary BEFORE creation of the page--but I don't think that's automatically sufficient--plenty of non-notable albums have their track listing published! Cazort (talk) 00:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
In some circumstances, notability can be inherited. According to the music notability guidelines "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Knowledge (XXG)." This is an officially released studio album from a notable band. That, coupled with the sources that are present, surely give this article sufficient notability. Fezmar9 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
That article clearly describes albums that have been officially released, and this one has not! And even if it had been released, I'm not convinced that this comes anywhere near close to the case of inheritance that you describe. Cazort (talk) 04:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: The article was well sourced and all information in the article was verifiable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:35, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep, with no prejudice to a Merge if consensus is formed. Black Kite 11:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Article reads like advertisement. LouriePieterse 14:43, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Change to Merge per Cunard's new links the subject seems to have attracted attention in the Chinese media. (Nice job finding those links btw.)--RDBury (talk) 07:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton |  00:42, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Merge as put forth above, while poorly written still part of a notable item if properly folded. Martin Raybourne (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • The Chinese hits on the first few pages are definitely PR, though. But the new sources DGG found may be sufficient to justify an article - not quite sure about their reliability. Tim Song (talk) 08:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

PROD and PROD2 removed without explanation. Fictional character with no indication of real-world notability. Unreferenced article with no clear context. The series itself has no article and so it seems very unlikely that this character meets the notability criteria for fiction. Nothing at all in Google except Knowledge (XXG). Possible Hoax? DanielRigal (talk) 23:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong Delete. Only hit on the googz was Knowledge (XXG). Absolutely no evidence of existence, let alone notability. Googling other names from this article also only returns Knowledge (XXG). I can find no evidence that the series even exists. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Note:There are 5 other articles for characters in this alleged series: Eloise D. Wyatt, Hank Wyatt, Mina Loyals, Cleopatra Valkcalski and Dalen Valkcalski. I currently have PROD on them all and may want to add them to this AfD if the PROD is removed. Would that be allowed? In addition, I think that some additional characters' articles may have already been deleted. I am also slightly concerned about their editing history as there are multiple authors using the same basic article layout suggesting that this is either a collaborative effort or that there is some sockpuppetry going on. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of people don't like group AFDs, so they are often listed separately. Although for something as straightforward as this where it's all clearly made up, I don't think it would matter. The socking thing is almost a non-issue; it's just a bunch of friends who don't understand Knowledge (XXG) and aren't really doing anything malicious. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 20:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Including them now probably won't be a good idea as this AFD has already been going for a few days. If they are contested, then they can be bundled together in a single nomination and just also note this AFD in the nomination rationale. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems I didn't need to worry anyway. The other PRODs are sticking OK at the moment. I think I misread this one a bit. I thought it was somebody deliberately messing us about when, as Doctorfluffy says, it is probably just some kids who don't know the rules. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:46, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. per G3 JForget 23:30, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Prodded as "Fantasy article on fantasy company - no cites or mentions exist, article has had request for references for over two years", but had been deprodded in April '07.

I concur with this reason for deletion - there is no evidence it ever existed. The only websites that mention this organisation are taking their list of private military contractors from... Knowledge (XXG). Fences&Windows 22:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy Keep (WP:SNOW) (Non-admin closure). I42 (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable opera singer with no reliable sources backing this up. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Speedy Keep. Obviously the nominator has not thought this through well or done any research on this subject. First, the artist is the winner of several notable music competitions, thereby satisfying the notability requirements at WP:Music. Second, a quick internet search shows she has sung on several recordings made on the Supraphon, Deutsche Grammophon, Phillips International Records, and other labels, further satisfying WP:Music. I also added a reliable source to the article which was previously unreferenced. The article is a stub and needs expansion, not deletion. Singingdaisies (talk) 22:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. Anyone who sang Erda at Bayreuth during the festivals golden age and therefore appears on one of the most respected recordings of the Ring as well as in the role of Jezibaba in a well known recording of Rusalka has to be a notable opera singer.--Peter cohen (talk) 00:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. In addition to the many excellent points made above, the deletion nomination was made only two minutes after the article was created, nowhere near enough time for the nominator to establish a reliable opinion on the supposed non-notability for a performer of this nature. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 05:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy keep (non-admin closure). Competing at the Olympics explicitly meets WP:ATHLETE, and nom appears to have attempted to withdraw AfD by removing header from article. I42 (talk) 22:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non notable canoer which article just says she won a race. 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedy close Redirect to Limited Brands. This was a much shorter, messy article about a subject for which an article already existed. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 22:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy keep Actually notable --3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 22:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to List of Fred Episodes. It was already redirected there JForget 23:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

There is already an article of Fred episodes over here, and the page is probably the most messiest article I ever saw. Jeremjay24 21:46, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 23:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I created it because I saw a few references from our other articles. It's a notable company in the country (Croatia), and they recently started exporting something to the US. I do not work for them, I just know about them, because everyone here does. BTW you can verify the stock exchange listing at the ZSE official site. --Joy (talk) 21:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • BTW your findsources links are off because they include our internal disambiguation suffix "(company)", but I have no idea if it would be improper of me to change the AFD heading when I'm an interested party as the article creator, so I'm just noting it. --Joy (talk) 21:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. and rename to List of music inspired by literature Black Kite 11:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

List of music inspired by novels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This small list has only four links to sections of articles covering the way some authors' works have inspired musical works. The title would suggest the article lists music inspired by authors, but it actually list authors who inspired music. It would be at best a disambiguation page. Unless several more links are added, this list won't prove useful. Victão Lopes 21:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete and perhaps create a category: "music derived from written works". inspired is a totally unacceptable word to use in a WP article name or category. of course, a musician can say they were inspired, and we can source and add comments like that to articles on significant composers. perhaps a category "works derived from works in other media"Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. So many articles on Knowledge (XXG) are full of trivia sections showing how this or that song was "inspired" by a book, movie, etc. To lump them all together in one list seems like a never-ending task, and could also be a subjective one. Yoninah (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The basis for nomination is mistaken/misleading. The links in the list are to lists of music. 'Inspired' totally fails to upset me. Re "never-ending task": WP:DEMOLISH. Subjective is a matter for WP:BOLD or the talk page. Anarchangel (talk) 15:13, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The title should be changed to Lists of works inspired by literature--Byron, for example, wrote no novels, and the plural is needed--it's a list of pages and sections, not of individual works of music. To clarify, I made the change even during the AfD, because it describes the page better and the change at least shouldn't be controversial. So many articles contain this information, because it is significant. And the links here are two of them to pages where it is significant enough for an individual page, and 2 to long sections--one of which, Byron, is undoubtedly enough for a full page, as these are multiple major works. Full pages could certainly written also for such authors as Goethe and Schiller, who inspired most of best-known songs in classical music (and Shakespeare and Scott, who inspired not just notable songs but some of the most famous operas in the world). The argument that this is too much to do is irrelevant, and would be irrelevant even if this were a list of individual works--NOT PAPER, and we have many editors. DGG ( talk ) 22:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom and Mercurywoodrose. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep name change did the trick for me. It seems to be links to existing articles.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete as copyvio. Alexf 02:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Tied together with a smile (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable person with no subject 3^0$0%0 1@!k (0#1®!%$ 21:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Its a copyvio, so speedy. Having no identifiable subject is a case for speedy too. It doesn't need an AfD. -- Fullstop (talk) 22:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MuZemike 23:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Lacks references to reliable 3rd party sources. WP:CRYSTAL based on speculation. Good example of WP:HAMMER. Only reference is to a CD sale site. Might be notable once released and reliable sources are available but not today.RadioFan (talk) 21:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment - I've just boldly directed this to Colonial Masses. I then redirected back to this page when I searched for it, and a lot of places said that it wasn't the title. However, I'd expect that play.com would be a pretty reliable source, though. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 21:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's include that article in this discussion as well --RadioFan (talk) 22:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Colonial Masses (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Comment, the references (a blog which still lists the album as untitled but has a speculative track list, and a CD sale site) there just dont support it. I dont doubt this album may meet notability guidlines at some point, that point isn't now however.
Comment, I would say Play.com is a reliable source for tracklists. They wouldn't be allowed to sell to the British market with speculative track lists without breaking regulations set by Trading Standards. I also don't see the problem of Twitter references as long as the profiles are verified. I've had a look and The Saturdays' Twitter profiles are verified by their official website as is the record label's 'welovepop' profile. ChelleKlass (talk) 13:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete for duplicate pages, keep for Wordshaker: Wordshaker is now confirmed as the album title, and the tracklist has been confirmed on other retailer lists as well (iTunes has the listing and track samples up, of which Popjustice did a mini-review). Considering that this is going to be released in a few weeks, and that confirmation just arrived today, won't it be pointless to delete it, since more sources will be popping up in the coming days and people will recreate it soon thereafter? SKS (talk) 22:13, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Wordshaker but delete other pages (Colonial Masses, Untitled Saturdays album etc). The title and tracklist have been confirmed by a number of sources, and the album will be released in just over two weeks and if deleted, it's no doubt going to be recreated so I think it should stay.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Other non-deletion actions can be discussed outside AFD. MuZemike 23:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

This is a minor fictional location that doesn't assert notability. None of the content is sourced and the information is very trivial. TTN (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I can make out, there's almost nothing to put in the article that can be verified by independent reliable sources. Knowledge (XXG) is not an appropriate host for user-submitted summaries of fiction.  Skomorokh  05:33, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I notice A.N. says "keep in some capacity", which I would interpret as "keep or merge", not "keep" DGG ( talk ) 08:20, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't feel there's even a consensus for merging. It can still be brought up outside AFD; if problems occur, remedy with dispute resolution. MuZemike 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Basic concepts of quantum mechanics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I propose this article be deleted (and redirected to Introduction to quantum mechanics to avoid breaking incoming links) for many, many reasons: First, it is a WP:FORK of Introduction to quantum mechanics by GeorgeLouis (talk · contribs). For a long while, the entire article was completely written by this user, and he has reverted all non-trivial changes by others (violating WP:OWN). Several editors have suggested that this page be merged with Introduction to quantum mechanics on the talk page. One of the main problems is that this page doesn't even present an introduction to quantum mechanics in any way. It's more like a history lesson. There are no "concepts" of quantum mechanics on this page. The article also has several technical inaccuracies. The Introduction to quantum mechanics is a far better article, which actually explains quantum mechanics. Finally, do read the talk page for opinions of other editors on this page. Robin (talk) 20:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

I think you meant to say WP:CFORK.--RDBury (talk) 03:34, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think some of your criticisms were valid two months ago, but aren't any more. GeorgeLouis hasn't edited the article for 6 weeks, and I have made quite a few improvements (IMHO) to the article by now. I hope that I have removed most of the technical inaccuracies in the sections I've worked on (which were generally the ones with the worst issues). I definitely disagree with your description of the page as having no concepts of quantum mechanics - there are sections on Planck's law of black body radiation, photons, the Bohr model, wave-particle duality, the uncertainty principle, etc. Looking at the historical development is quite a common pedagogical approach to QM, and for good reason - naive physics is classical physics, and it's only because the real world turned out not to be well described by classical physics that it was necessary to develop QM. There is a wider discussion to be had about what level Intro articles should be aimed at, whether it's OK to have "really simple intro" and "not so simple intro", etc. Back in July I proposed merging this article with the Intro article. As I said when I withdrew the proposal, I don't think either of these articles are yet ready to be merged to create the perfect introductory article. While the Intro to QM article has many good points, it goes offputtingly far beyond being an introduction in places. Hopefully continued work on both articles will get them to a state where they can either be usefully brought together, or to the point where it becomes clear that they should both continue separately to serve different functions. Djr32 (talk) 21:51, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, the problem here is that we've got two competing articles that do the same thing: provide an introduction to basic quantum mechanics. That's not a good state of affairs, and I don't think it's acceptable to leave the matter as it stands, because it creates needless confusion for the encyclopaedia's end-users. But, this content doesn't have to be a competing article per se, and I think there are various ways of retaining the content.

    One option would be to redesign this as a list and call it List of concepts in quantum mechanics; because lists and articles can co-exist, serving complementary functions (see WP:CLN).

    Another option is the new WP:OUTLINE project. I haven't yet decided whether I like the idea of outlines, but I thought I'd raise it for discussion; could this form an Outline of quantum mechanics?

    I think I'd be happy with any solution that means there aren't two competing introductory articles on the subject.—S Marshall /Cont 22:46, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree with you on this. As long as there aren't two articles with the same purpose, it should be fine. I'm not sure which solution is the best though. I think maybe just a merge with the other intro article might be best. Or a selective merge with the History article and Intro article. --Robin (talk) 23:06, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It is not desirable to have two different "introductory" articles on quantum mechanics. This one should be merged into the pre-existing one. I don't think that a deletion is required, but merge is a valid AFD outcome and it is the outcome I would favor here. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment: Merging may result in another edit war.
Nearly four years ago to the day a contributor to Knowledge (XXG) from Great Britain began what is now called Introduction to Quantum Mechanics. He observed that the physics articles seemed to be written by physicists for physicists, and therefore offered no way of entry for the reader who did not have professional qualifications. He proposed that bright students and interested readers without the benefit of a couple years of college-level physics and calculus be offered some way to learn about these subjects. He did not propose talking down to these readers.
The current Matrix mechanics article might serve as an example of the challenge such articles pose to non-professional readers. The first several hundred words give an introduction that could probably be turned into something that would not pose a problem for the average well-informed reader. Then math is brought in, and those same readers would be faced with:
∫ 0 T P d X = n h . {\displaystyle \int _{0}^{T}PdX=nh.}
and
X ( t ) = ∑ n = − ∞ ∞ e 2 π i n t T X n {\displaystyle X(t)=\sum _{n=-\infty }^{\infty }e^{2\pi int \over T}X_{n}}
just for starters.
The fact that some math is beyond the level of the average well-informed reader is not evidence for the conclusion that all math should be banned from an introductory article. The question should be whether people with a high school education can handle the math, and whether there is anything preventing those who do not find equations helpful from skipping over them.
Some kind of fig leaf could be put over the math in the Introduction to QM, but what purpose would that serve? Are equations really offenses to community standards or something? Is it not more important to give those anxious to learn what they need to make real progress?
If there are elements in the Basic concepts article that could improve the explications of the current Intro article, please bring the matter up on the discussion page for the Intro article.
A couple of contributors with professional math/physics backgrounds have kept an eye on the Intro article. However, if after all their work there are still any inaccuracies in this article, please report them on the Intro discussion page.
When Mr. Louis deleted all content from the Intro article and replaced it with his own, I tried to work with that material in the spirit of compromise. All changes were reverted with the exception of one, and in that case he "accepted" the change and then revised it to reintroduce one of his original errors. His response to interventions by senior editors (e.g. Sarek of Vulcan) after that point was to create his own fork.
I will gladly support inclusion of any language in the fork that substantially improves the Intro to QM article, but I fear that an edit war against the Intro to QM article would follow any move to delete the Basic concepts article. P0M (talk) 02:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge: Both articles seem to have useful content but there is a lot of overlap and both articles purport to do the same thing. Content forks are against WP policy and trying to avoid an edit war is no reason to break it. Having two articles means twice the effort to accomplish the same thing and will confuse people who actually want to read about the subject. If merging the articles is going be so acrimonious then it's sounds like what we're really talking about is POV fork, which is even more against WP policy than a content fork. Plus, if we start accommodating policy to keep a few people form getting upset then we're just opening the door for people to put anything they want to here, all they have to do is raise a stink if someone objects. Knowledge (XXG) is supposed to be for the benefit of readers, not editors. See also WP:EFFORT.--RDBury (talk) 04:12, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- - 2/0 (cont.) 17:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge I don't really understand the previous "Keep" comment which seems to think that merging content from this article into that will destroy good material. This is not the aim of any merge, and don't see it happening in this case. In any case, having essentially the same thing in two different places is wrong for many reasons, not the least of which is it is against Knowledge (XXG) policy and it is confusing to the casual reader, so a merge is ideal.-RunningOnBrains 06:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge (content forks are bad, etc.) with the following reminder: "Merge" does not mean "delete the whole text of one article and replace it with the whole text of the other", which is what I fear some editors will take "merge" to mean. Currently, Introduction to quantum mechanics has more or less the right content but is terribly, terribly written: it's poorly organized, poorly formatted, lacks clear explanation, and in places has a tone which seems to suggest that "layman" should be synonymous with "idiot". Basic concepts of quantum mechanics is well-written and has clear explanation, but lacks any substantial treatment of quantum mechanics: mathematics and precise, technical discussion are absent, much like with popular science books that leave the reader with nothing but a fuzzy understanding of the topic. I'd like to see an article with the tone, clarity, and style of "Basic concepts of quantum mechanics" with the content level of "Introduction to quantum mechanics". As for possible edit warring, we should probably ask administrators to patrol the page for some time after any merge. Strad (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename to Introduction to history of quantum mechanics. Let's call a spade a spade, and I don't see why such an article couldn't be useful. Brisvegas 10:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename as suggested above. As more people have become involved in the Intro to QM article, the math content of that article has increased. I do not object to that, personally, but many earlier critics of that article have wanted no math. P0M (talk) 16:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • "No math" is, frankly, a ludicrous requirement for an article on quantum mechanics. Simply because some critic tries to impose such a requirement does not mean we should try to acquiesce. Moreover, forking an article solely over this sort of thing violates WP:POVFORK. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisting comment The approximate consensus now is that the article should not be kept in its present form. The alternatives are the following:
    • merging to the introduction article
    • renaming to List of basic concepts (or similar, since this is in fact an elaborate list)
    • merging to the History of QM article (what this article in fact covers)
I don't think deletion is the case here just because there was some edit warring some weeks ago. I am relisting the debate so that while the debate is active, a reasonable conclusion can be drawn. I know this is a usual practice to do it at the talkpage so if any admin thinks this is more appropriate, this debate can as well be closed. --Tone 20:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: rename if necessary. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment We already have History of quantum mechanics. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:09, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh. Then my vote would be to merge. Hopefully the different editors can work it out civilly. Yoninah (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
If the merged article would be too long then it can always be split up again along more rational lines than one guy wrote one version and a different guy wrote the other version. You can find my rant about edit wars above. I like the way you're thinking though, if there's a way to draw a distinction so that the articles are actually about different things then there could be two. But I think the result would be no better than if you merged the articles and then split them up again based on something logical.--RDBury (talk) 05:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

i propose this article be left as it is. quite useful for beginners

  • Keep A vibrant and informative article, with flair as well as technical excellence. This is what Knowledge (XXG) should be, and so often fails to be, particularly in the area of science, which is cursed with dribbles from amateurs and floods from experts who do not know how to write for entry-level readers. I have copied it, to work on if it does not pass the AfD. Anarchangel (talk) 15:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment: It doesn't seem like we're reaching consensus. Although we all mostly agree that the article should not just be deleted, we don't have consensus on what to do. I have a proposal, which might make everyone happy.

  1. First, the History of quantum mechanics article is almost entirely a list, and has very little prose. The "Timeline" section of that article (which is about 75% of the article) is very similar to the Timeline of quantum mechanics article. I propose that the "Timeline" section of History of quantum mechanics be merged with Timeline of quantum mechanics to have one comprehensive timeline of QM.
  2. Now that the History of quantum mechanics has lost its timeline section, it is a really short article. What it really needs is a timeline of QM, but written in prose. Like a story. Just like it's done in Basic concepts of quantum mechanics. So lets merge Basic concepts of quantum mechanics with it at this point.

So in conclusion, I propose: History of quantum mechanics#Timeline merges with Timeline of quantum mechanics and Basic concepts of quantum mechanics merges with History of quantum mechanics. Comments? --Robin (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like as good a plan as any; avoids content forks and keeps the existing material.--RDBury (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree, too. Yoninah (talk) 17:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Fine with me. P0M (talk) 23:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree that the timelines should be merged, but the deficiency of 'History' after the timeline is removed is that it is not a complete summary of the timeline articles. 'History' should be a summary of the history, and 'Basic' is quite rightly an introduction to the subject, and stands on that merit; its nomination as a PoV fork is erroneous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anarchangel (talk • contribs)
'Basic' is not at all an introduction to quantum mechanics. It is completely a history article. It is an historical overview of the developments in quantum mechanics, written for the person who wishes to understand how QM came into existence. An Introduction to QM explains quantum mechanics: It talks about wave-particle duality, wavefunctions, interference, superposition, Schrodinger's equation, matrix mechanics, Hilbert spaces, and things like that. And such an article has math which explains this. For example, see Introduction to special relativity. It actually explains concepts and has equations/math! --Robin (talk) 12:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Right. And the peer review of the Intro to QM article of a couple of years ago makes many of these same points. P0M (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 18:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Not notable. He's a grad student at Indiana, not a faculty member, something that was glossed over in the entry prior to its first deletion. Several books are self-published or pay-to-publish. Looks like an autobiography to me. Deleted previously through prod, but restored after prod disputed by email. Hairhorn (talk) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment I'm confused. While I do see that the article obviously needs a lot of work and might even be autobiographically made, the news sources on the bottom are legitimate and notable. What's the clear reason for it needing to be deleted? It looks like it just needs to be cleaned up. Silverseren 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the concern is that this person doesnt quite make notability for author, academic, or public figure. the poetry is from very small presses, he doesnt have that high a position in academia, and his public notoriety/notability possibly below the mark. you are correct that the article describes the person fairly well, and is well documented/sourced, if a little overly promotionally. I am really not sure about this passing notability, but i think it deserves close attention, and his appearance in the "culture wars", while marginal, may make this a keeper.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. In addition to what has already been said above, the number of WorldCat libraries holding the subject’s book is minuscule – typically not a good sign in terms of notability, in the subject’s area.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MuZemike 00:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Promotion for non-notable software. Many Google hits, but seems predominantly to download sites. No signs of notability. Haakon (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Even the few Google News hits it gets are to PR sites not independent coverage. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. The initial addition was based on someone else's article ]. I initially added it because it's a useful addition to Comparison of remote desktop software. This software is just as notable as 90% of the entries in that article. It's a well known, useful product, and I originally heard about it on a Tech talk show on the radio in mainstream media. Removal of products like this one would require a complete revisit of all of the other equivalent entries in Comparison of remote desktop software, almost all of which are useful additions to the comparison chart. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs) — Riptider (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • Comment. Deleting this article would not require revisiting the other articles listed. See Knowledge (XXG):Other stuff exists. Notability has to be asserted in the article through citations of third-party coverage. Haakon (talk) 14:11, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I'm not a Knowledge (XXG) guru -- this is my first kick at this can, so I can't cite Knowledge (XXG) laws. Why not leave the article of a perfectly valid software product that's widely used so that it has a chance to build those third party references? They must exist, but I don't have them (or the strong desire to go around digging them up). I suggest we let the article grow organically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
        • You don't need to be a guru. At issue here is notability of the software. If you can show independent reviews or coverage of the software in reliable sources, then it's likely notable. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I understand and if that's the decision rendered, I'm not going to argue. I would point out, though, that it's equally notable to almost all other similar software in the Comparison of remote desktop software and it's a very valuable entry in that list. While I agree that it's not as notable as say Microsoft's Remote Desktop, it's just as notable as 90% of the other entries in that list. Why is this one piece of software in particular being singled out for deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
            • Because nobody has gotten around to going through those other articles, evaluating their notability, and then nominating them for deletion. Like I said, other stuff exists. Haakon (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
              • It remains valuable addition to that chart and for that reason, I think it should be kept. It has been blogged about in many different places (just added a couple) -- I just can't point to MSM coverage except for the radio show I heard about it on which is obviously not referenceable on the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riptider (talk • contribs)
              • Added more references. Some from blogs, some from mainstream media which would include the "reliable sources" you're looking for.
  • Delete - I cannot find any coverage about this software in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MuZemike 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

A web-series going since 2008, I found one third-party source on a digital blog which is exclusively about internet web-series. Due to the lack of third-party sources it fails WP:N+WP:WEB. So delete. Otterathome (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep: Dude, this article was created three days ago. You didn't give the creators enough time to flesh the article out properly. Nevertheless, it meets WP:WEB #3, which says "The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster; except for trivial distribution including content being hosted on sites without editorial oversight (such as YouTube, MySpace, GeoCities, Newgrounds, personal blogs, etc.)." as it is distributed by KoldKast.TV. Additionally, third party sources: etc. The article therefore meets WP:WEB AND WP:N (which it actually does not need to meet explicitly if it meets a more specific category, per WP:N - "A topic can also be considered notable if it meets the criteria outlined in one of the more subject-specific guidelines: ... Web content." Since the article in question clearly meets Knowledge (XXG) notability policies, I would suggest that the nominator withdraw this AfD. --Zoeydahling (talk) 02:45, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Some reliable sources to backup your claim about the KoldKast.TV being respected and having editorial oversight would be nice. Sources 1, 2, 3 and 6 are from tubefilter.tv, a digital blog that blogs exclusively about web-series'. 4, 5, 6, and 7 are press releases, and 8 is a one off mention. So it doesn't 'clearly' meet our guidelines I'm afraid.--Otterathome (talk) 06:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Read KoldCast.TV's about page : "KoldCast is seriously selective about entertainment programming. While YouTube-style videos are often entertaining, and you’ll see some of the very best here, we are confident that you’ll also enjoy watching the very best shows, movies, extreme sports, comedy, music, and no-BS news, all produced at the next level." Backs up about KoldCast. If that doesn't suffice for you, read this third-party source that says the same thing About my sources: only source (Huntington News) is a press release, if you are going to claim otherwise, please prove it. Your comments about Tubefilter.tv being "a digital blog that blogs exclusively about web-series" are irrelevant. Please show me anywhere in Knowledge (XXG) policy that states you cannot use a source that is an expert in a field as a third party reliable source? It doesn't. If that were true, you couldn't use science journals for scientific articles or TV Guide magazine articles for TV shows. Also, yes, (bignews.biz) is a one-off mention, but one that states "2009 Webby Award Honoree web series Poor Paul" which proves the show meets #2 of WP:WEB, which states "The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization" Now that I've proven that this article meets ALL THREE qualifications for WP:WEB, any one of which alone would suffice, I'd say it's time to withdraw this nomination, wouldn't you? --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Still need a third-party source saying the koldkast website is 'respected' or described in a similar way. I'm not suggesting anything is wrong with tubefilter, but it's not very good for showing this type of content is notable. It only covers web-series' content, so it is very likely there would be content about it there anyway. And as their about page states "to grow the audience of web television" meaning it's a blog to promote this type of content. I will list other similar examples where it wouldn't be a good way to show something was very notable:
  1. A computer virus write up on an anti-virus vendors website. (all computer viruses get write ups)
  2. An article about a BitTorrent client on the TorrentFreak blog
  3. Any other type of content that is covered on a blog that only covers that specialist content with the aim to promote that type of content
  • The fact is has been going since 2008 and has only been covered by a single web-series blog suggests it has yet to become notable outside of that scene making it WP:FANCRUFT. I have provided evidence showing those source I mentioned are in fact press releases:
  • Source 4 - "MLC PR" the PR stands for press release.
  • Source 5 - Notice the 'send2press' newswire, the company has used the send2press.com service.
  • Source 6 - is another tubefilter.tv, not a press release, my mistake. I think I meant 8, see below.
  • Source 7 - "From a Koldcast Press Release"
  • Source 8 (didn't notice that before) is also a press release, a website purely for press releases only.
So currently for determining notability, we only have a bunch of articles from tubefilter, which isn't very good for showing it is notable for reasons described above. And yes, I will happily close this AFD when it passes our guidelines, you don't need to remind me.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The third party source about Koldcast was provided. See above.
Additionally, what you have said about your sources is still just your opinion and has yet to be shown to be rooted in any official policy. Your first example about computer viruses is irrelevant because Tubefilter is not just an indiscriminate list of every web series that has ever existed, but a news source about the web entertainment industry. I have no idea about BitTorrents or TorrentFreak, but I'm assuming it's the same deal.
And once again, for your number three point, you are still going by opinion and NOT policy.
A good for instance here would be: The New York Times exists to promote journalistic integrity and unbiased news stories, right? (I mean, that may not be their exact mission statement, I did not look this up, but all newspapers would aim towards such a goal, no?) Would it then be reasonable to state that a New York Times article, or ANY article in a news publication about journalistic integrity be not considered a reliable third-party source because the newspaper is trying to promote such principles? Of course not. Therefore, your argument falters.
I'll need to relook at the other sources, but my understanding of them was that they cited press releases, but were articles on their own. I'll double check when I have a bit more time.
Additionally, your statement about this being WP:FANCRUFT, is once again an opinion, and even if it were, it is completely irrelevant to this deletion discussion.
Regardless though, there are multiple reliable third-party articles on the series now, even with just Tubefilter, so it meets WP:WEB #1, it was a Webby Honoree, which meets #2, and is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators which meets #3.
In conclusion, it meets ALL THREE WP:WEB criteria, where meeting any ONE would suffice, so it would seem pretty clear that the article meets Knowledge (XXG)'s notability criteria. And since you said you would close this AfD once such a thing was proven, I believe it is now time for you to follow through.
--Zoeydahling (talk) 00:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
You sourced the KoldKast thing from the same website, don't you have any other sources which don't intend to promote this type of content? And sources that count towards notability need to be independant, as press releases are obviously not, we can't use them, see WP:N. Tubefilter is purely only about web tv type content so they will cover most web tv content. I'm not questioning the reliabilty of it, but it's bad example using such a site to show something is notable. I linked you to the fancruft page, as this appears to be the type of content we're dealing with. So we're still stuck with these not so good tubefilter sources.--Otterathome (talk) 17:07, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Until you can find me where in Knowledge (XXG) policy it says that you cannot use Tubefilter as a third party reliable source to help establish notability for a web series, I am forced to assume you are still arguing your opinion and not any real issues that are rooted in the guidelines of this wiki. --Zoeydahling (talk) 17:31, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
As the website intends to promote the content it writes about, it would be impossible to write a neutral article about it (WP:NPOV). It also borders the issues mentioned in citation 6 on WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 17:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what is meant by "promoting web series" or however they phrase it. They are not there to promote every single web series that ever existed. There are plenty of web series that they do not cover. Instead, they are trying to promote the genre as a whole, to make it a well respected entertainment medium along the lines of cinema or television. Once again, TV Guide exists to promote television shows and the New York Times exists to promote journalistic integrity, but that does not mean those sources cannot write neutral articles on the subject. Tubefilter is a well-respected source in this genre, and is cited by many major news outlets (see the tubefilter article for examples). Also, your comment about WP:N citation 6 makes no sense to me, as Tubefilter is none of the things listed, nor does it resemble any of the things listed. --Zoeydahling (talk) 19:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Our mission at Tubefilter is simple – to grow the audience of web television.

It is website that specifically covers only that type of specialist content and intends to grow the audience of that type of content. If that is the only website you can find non-trivial sources which qualify for WP:N, then it fails WP:N.--Otterathome (talk) 13:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Still opinion, not rooted in any policy in WP:N. Nowhere does it say that you cannot use specialist sources for determining WP:N. --Zoeydahling (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Tubefilter is just one source, WP:N requires more than one.--Otterathome (talk) 14:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
There are multiple sources. Tubefilter has multiple articles, that is multiple sources. Regardless of who is correct here, which obviously I believe I am, while you believe you are, the article does not need to meet WP:N explicitly if it already meets a more specific criteria, which it does through WP:WEB so this argument about WP:N is really moot. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Hmm ok, so you agree the only non-trivial sources that qualify for WP:N are from Tubefilter then?--Otterathome (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I actually believe this source qualifies because it cites a press release as a source for their article, but is not an exact copy of a press release, as far as I can tell. Regardless though, even if Tubefilter were the only source, what difference would it make? This article still meets wikipedia's notability guidelines. --Zoeydahling (talk) 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
It's a press release, which is why it starts with "MLC PR". There's no author name, and it says "Please visit: www.monaloring.com for info" at the end, also googling a unique sentence from it show it is posted on many different websites including press release ones.--Otterathome (talk) 15:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: Nominator apparently can't google well per Zoeydahling's information. Nominator has also nominated Tubefilter for deletion (the one source he/she found that they then discount, but is only person arguing for deletion of that as well. Nominator also has a recent history of nominating webseries related articles for deletion regardless of whether the articles actually merit deletion, there's lots of drama out there about this I won't rehash here.--Milowent (talk) 05:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per Zoeydahling. The article needs serious work, though.
Wait...a bad-faith nomination from Otterathome? What a surprise! THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 16:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Go troll-vote elsewhere, or you could actually add something constructive for once.--Otterathome (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
With your history, you have a lot of nerve saying someone else is trolling. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I have speedied one of the articles that Otter has tagged for notability. How about improving the articles instead of complaining about bad faith? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
"you could actually add something constructive for once". I admit, I didn't expect that to happen.--Otterathome (talk) 17:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Nice to hear you don't want my help, because I'm not helping you -- I'm trying to help the encyclopedia.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
I'd rather discuss about the actual article instead of me. Archiving this as it's already gone off-topic. But everyone is still free to comment on the article.--Otterathome (talk) 17:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Unnotable children's song. Only reliable sources confirm it exists, which isn't in question. Fails WP:MUSIC and WP:N. CSD removed without comment. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep. The song has continuing popularity or at least recognition as a children's song. See the numerous Google Books hits for evidence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:02, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep A well known song for 120 years. There are 3 verses in addition to the chorus. It is called a "well-known refrain" by "The dictionary of nautical literacy‎ (2001, p 320)" Notable things include those familiar to most people. Scribners magazine in 1937 said it was "that song all the little farm boys and girls sing so lustily in all the prairie schoolhouses in the west." When such a reliable source says something is notable, I do not feel that they have to gone at great length saying it is notable for it to be significant coverage. This song is in "A second treasury of the familiar (1950, p593)."‎ "The American song reader" (1997, page 83) says "Sailing" is one of the three stereotypical songs about life at sea, along with "Sailor's hornpipe" (familiar from Popeye cartoons) and "16 men on a dead man's chest." It is a stereotypical sea song very commonly used in books, movies and plays, such as "The time of your life"(1983, act 3) by William Saroyan or "Murder on the Potomac" (1995, p104) by Margaret Truman, and countless others. Satisfies WP:N. The special notability guideline for songs seems aimed at modern recorded music, and not towards traditional songs. Edison (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    It's unquestionably a famous song, but I still have doubts about its notability. It would be nice if there were any sources had more than a sentence or two about it. I'd suggest merging this to an article about James Frederick Swift/Godfrey Marks, but there doesn't seem to be much written about him either. Maybe there's a list of songs that would be appropriate to merge this to.--Chris Johnson (talk) 20:39, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep. A song known to every kid. Amazing to see this listed for nomination. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - well known song dicussed in sources as noted above -- Whpq (talk) 16:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Kirby`s dream land 4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced speculations about a future version of some game. WP:CRYSTAL. PROD was removed by anonymous IP without explanation. Favonian (talk) 19:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Article seems to fail WP:NOTABILITY criteria of WP:BIO---- Hu12 (talk) 18:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

"WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS PRO XC, 39TH" seems to be his best achievement. --Kslotte (talk) 22:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Textbook case of WP:NOTAVOTE. I mostly ignored the votes by SPAs which all failed arguments to avoid in deletion discussions and were not rooted in policy. The consensus, ignoring the SPAs, are that the third party sources are not enough to establish notability. NW (Talk) 18:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Notability and BLP concerns; article has become a Coatrack for conspiracy theory claims about the involvement of living persons in some sort of alleged genocide attempts involving H1N1 vaccine. Article was apparently created by the subject. Its sources are primarily blogs and fringe websites. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 18:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep Jane Burgermeister exists and has a lot of reference in nature.com and pubmed; so we can't know if everythings she says is true but she is really who sayd to be. Zioalex (talk) 12:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)— Zioalex (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Delete. No evidence of notability.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 23:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep While I never recommend listening to crazy people, unfortunately, lot of people are listening to her. I added a bunch of references that I found, chock full of conspiracy goodness. Have fun. Silverseren 00:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep and improve. Silver serens additions help toward the required "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Any BLP concerns can fixed, I see none. Article doesn't appear to have been coatrack, her claims are that high level people are involved in a conspiracy and that it what the article says, whether she is right or not is immaterial. No proof given that was created by subject (more likely a supporter who didn't wait for the better sources to come along, given that jbwiki2009 was the username). Some better sources have already been found. A variety of news results from google around the world for "Jane Burgermeister. 86.3.142.2 (talk) 13:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep With addition of a number of external links which do not immediately come off as conspiracy cruft, I think notability should be not so much an issue any longer (I haven't gone into detail studying them). __meco (talk) 14:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • If you had gone to the trouble, you would have found that several of them were pieces of science journalism by Burgermeister, which contribute nothing to notability, others were unreliable sources and one (the Pacific Free Press article) might be a reliable source, though its unbuttoned style is not exactly encouraging. N p holmes (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Regardless of what you believe to be true or not, one fact is undeniable and in my opinion, most worrying. This being the WHO's authority under certain circumstances, to make it a criminal offence not to receive a vaccination. Furthermore we should never stifle free speech and debate.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Olltwit (talk • contribs) 16:06, September 21, 2009 (UTC)— Olltwit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep The fact that this person has filed criminal charges against WHO and Baxter, among others, merits an article here. No one can deny the fact that Baxter did contaminate a huge amount of vaccine sent out to different parts of the world. Nor can one hide the fact that they were responsible for contaminating a public transportation with bio-hazardous material. Cannot find this info on the wiki page for this corporation.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.65.125.57 (talk) 16:47, September 21, 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete Knowledge (XXG) often serves as a decent source on fringe ideas or barely notable people. This article, however, is a collection of non-notable, unverifiable information that is hardly useful to anyone. And that does not seem likely to change. More reliable sources may have come to the conclusion that it is a hoax/froad or a tragic story of mental illness. In any case, it is not up to Knowledge (XXG) to make the subject of this article notable or its content verifiable. Rl (talk) 09:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
"This article...a collection of non-notable, unverified information"=article is all of six sentences, two of which mention the one case (the first one being the introductory sentence). More "reliable sources" may have decided they prefer to get a paycheck. I expect this article to be deleted and some time in the next two years, re-appear as her name is provided in books so the MSM avoidance will not be an issue. She is not a hoax as can be seen from her previous writings in Nature etc.163.1.147.64 (talk) 10:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Jane Burgermeister is notable for filing criminal charges against Baxter for the attempt to start a bird flu pandemic. The event occurred and the charges was made. Since then Jane Burgermeister has been interviewed on more than 25 radio shows and is well known among vaccine resisting organizations. The claims made by her are supported by evidence and Knowledge (XXG) is not a court of law where cases like these are supposed to be judged. Keep in mind that the pharma industry would love to see her disappear, not only from here but also IRL.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.3.250.68 (talk • contribs) — 85.3.250.68 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: (i) Burgermeister has not filed "criminal charges" (nor AFAIK does she have the power to do so), she has only filed allegations. Allegations get filed all the time. Mere allegations are not notable unless they have received considerable coverage in reliable third party sources -- generally the mainstream media. We have no coverage whatsoever of these allegations in reliable third party sources, nor do we have any indication that the FBI is taking these allegations in the least bit seriously (or even that they have jurisdiction to investigate them if they did take them seriously), so we have no notability whatsoever. HrafnStalk 02:50, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The above "Comment" is partly incorrect. Jane Burgermeister did file criminal charges in Austria. She has presented the file numbers given to them from the Austrian Police. The FBI never gave any file number to her and they may never have started an formal investigation.Two different branches of the Austrian Police have started investigations. The file numbers are presented on her web site. So is a stamped document proving the charges was received. Criminal charges have also been made in France - they have also been clearly documented and scanned copies of their receipts have been published on her site. An Injunction has been submitted in the state of Florida, also with proof of receipt. Beware of the religious fanatics from the Dr True Ott camp who are leading a nasty smear campaign against Jane Burgermeister. They seem to be active here and are aggressively attacking everything about Jane Burgermeister, see www.labvirus.com.— 85.3.205.93 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment: my understanding is that private prosecutions are rare and difficult to initiate. WP:REDFLAG would therefore apply. "File numbers … from the Austrian Police" would only indicate that an investigation has been initiated, not that charges have been laid (the latter would necessitate a case number from the Austrian courts, not from the police). I see no evidence that any court has accepted these criminal charges. Regardless there remains the problem that no reliable third party coverage means no notability. HrafnStalk 10:01, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: None of Burgermeister's claims stack up, and the appearance of this page gives her a veneer of respectability. At the very least, some significant health warnings need to be introduced, not only the question of whether these legal proceedings have been submitted. These errors by her (whether deliberate or not) on her website are 1) it was H5N1 (bird flu) that was the contaminant, not H1N1 (swine flu) 2)it was not vaccine that was contaminated, but normal human flu virus - this is a huge difference, as her version suggests it was designed to enter the 'food chain' 3) she was only a freelancer for the news organisation she claims to have been employed by.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.35.112.32 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 23 September 2009
None of the above comments by 82.35.112.32 refer to anything covered by policies and guidelines for deletion. The orginal nom questioned notability and BLP concerns as well as noting coatrack. BLP concerns and coatracks in themselves are not reasons for deletions, although I agree with the nom n that coatracks (see "But it's true") are unbalanced and this at present can be said to be true about this article. Is she notable for having done what she has done is the real question, everything else is "fixable" if we find that she is.86.3.142.2 (talk) 08:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep: One question that should drive our attention is: Why was this entry proposed for deletion at this very moment, when the problem of the porcine flu vaccine in under such a hot debate??? Isn't it another attempt to shut the mouth of a responsible voice? Just thinking...(Futureisland)— Futureisland (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete While I totally agree that critics of government policy should express their concerns, this person does not seem to have reached the level of WP:Notability. This would happen when she is discussed in depth in the mainstream newsmedia, books, etc. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. Reliable sources aren't covering her, only unreliable fringe sources like Prison Planet. This isn't about censorship, it's about the complete lack of reliable sources to verify any of this material or to demonstrate real notability. Fences&Windows 19:46, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment Yes, we already have a "if you have come here from another site" notice up, that is not a reason for deletion, the only reason you provide is that you "do no think this person should have an article".
What "Wiki watcher" actually said was "Russell’s article seems safe, though Jane Burgermeister’s is ‘the dock’ for deletion:
http://en.wikipedia.org/Russell_Blaylock
http://en.wikipedia.org/W.....germeister"
That is as a response to an article by Drs. Russell Blaylock and Joseph Mercola, one could say "so and so is talking about this deletion" when they only provided a link but I personally would infer they are just surprised "consensus" hasn't already deleted Blaylock's article.86.3.142.2 (talk) 10:54, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
(i) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is a very poor argument for keeping. (ii) I wouldn't be surprised if Russell Blaylock gets AfDed as well (it's already been posted to WP:FTN). HrafnStalk 11:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
If you read and understood what I wrote, you'd appreciate I wasn't making an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, I was commenting on the user's lack of deletion rationale. Google scholar seems to come up with a fair decent amount of articles in known Medical Journals for Blaylock.86.3.142.2 (talk) 23:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was DELETE. Alexf 02:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Timon and Pumbaa: The Wilds (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unverifiable claimed upcoming television series. Can find no mention of this series in any reliable, third-party source, only appears to be mentioned by Knowledge (XXG) mirrors and people citing Knowledge (XXG) in personal sites and Yahoo! Answers. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Besides the overly promotional tone of the article, Gnews and Gsearch turn up little about him, outside of press releases, and articles on MP3.com in which he is mentioned. Since notability is not inherited, and there is a lack of secondary source coverage that I have been able to find, this does not appear to meet WP:BIO. Mr. Vernon (talk) 17:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Withdrawn. — Jake Wartenberg 02:20, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable individual, who fails WP:BIO. I can find no coverage that passes the "multiple reliable, third-party sources" rule. That coverage I can find fails WP:NOT#NEWS and WP:BLP1E, essentially, it's coverage for a single event (her standing in for her sister). Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep On the first day, he Googled. And on the seventh day, there were references. And it was good.

All joking aside, she appears notable to me. I added reliable sources and there were many more besides what I put.Silverseren 00:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

  • And on the eight day, he was resting, when a user came up to him and said "what the fuck, oh lord? I couldn't see any of these - I'm obviously an idiot. Can I withdraw the nomination now?" :P. Ironholds (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Discussions about merging should take place on the talk page. NW (Talk) 18:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Unnotable fictional creature. Fails WP:N. Article purely unsourced WP:OR and fansite material. Had been tagged for issues since August 2007. Tried cleaning up and removing all the made up stuff that was not in a single film, trimmed the ridiculously excessive plot and was left with a very short stub. Article fails WP:N and WP:WAF. Prod and maintenance tags were removed and all OR and blatantly false information (graboids being portrayed by someone?) was restored by User:Colonel Warden without any explanation. Possibly redirectable to Tremors since there is no "Tremors" series page. Beyond that, all relevant points of the graboids are already appropriately covered in the main film articles and they have no real-world notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to duplicate. The others you list are not mindless creatures about which about all you can validly state is that it is a "big worm-like creature". This is not a species nor a character, but a basic monster easily explained in a sentence or two. An entire article is not needed for that. At best, if there were a proper series article for Tremors, a paragraph on the three might be appropriate there.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep as notable fiction creature per WP:N and WP:WAF and as an unoriginal research. That nomination suggests "possibly redirectable" is a call for a talk page discussion, but clearly no reason/need to delete. Sincerely, --A Nobody 19:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Tremors. The sources are insufficient to justify a stand-alone article. I was surprised that more sources aren't out there, given the creativity and success of the monster concept, but that was the searches revealed. Abductive (reasoning) 20:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - I think that an nice article could be made on them, but I doubt they're called Graboids by the sources, making it hard to find sources. Sources would have to be actually read instead of searched by google. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 01:24, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Why wouldn't they be called graboid in any reliable source? It is the term used in the film. I'd question any source that didn't call them that. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:37, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's a philosophical point. First off, I read the sources, and they are not sufficient to support a separate article; they lack the analysis required. Secondly, is it reasonable to suppose that users want to read about these things in their own article? Judging from the page views, the article on the first film is consistently more popular than the article on the monsters. Having read the article on the first film, users can then follow the story of the monsters in context through the articles on the sequels. Since none of the film articles are particularly long, this is not so much to ask them to endure, is it? It's the same information; we are arguing about which articles to place it in. The only difference between our positions is that you want the information duplicated. Abductive (reasoning) 07:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per MQS above. I would support a selective merge and redirect to a series article, but as one does not exist I'm not sure whether keeping seperate or redirecting to the first film article is preferable. In any case, actual deletion is unnecessary, and making a reasonably likely search term a red link undesirable. Eluchil404 (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

fails WP:BIO. Coverage is limited to places like IMDB (who aren't a reliable source) and similar websites, and his work certainly isn't enough to justify any kind of inherent notability per, say, WP:CREATIVE. Ironholds (talk) 17:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Seems to fail WP:MUSICBIO. lots of google hits but I can't see any from reliable sources. noq (talk) 16:59, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep I think those links should help and are reliable sources:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/reviews/c9dp
http://pitchfork.com/reviews/tracks/11496-howling-light/
http://www.gigwise.com/reviews/albums/48768/J-Tillman---Vacilando-Territory-Blues-Bella-Union-Released-190109
http://www.yerbird.com/tillman/index.html
http://www.tourtracker.com/artist/j-tillman/514457
http://www.computerbild.de/artikel/Musikkritik-Rock-Pop-Vacilando-Territory-Blues-3830387.html
http://www.plattentests.de/rezi.php?show=6359

Also I added some references in the article that I think are reliable sources for WP:MUSICBIO. User: Orangetengo 19:26, 21 September 2009 (MEZ)

Here is another great source I found: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/theticket/2009/0828/1224253374287.html User: Orangetengo 20:00, 21 September (MEZ)

  • Keep - the BBC review is substantial, and the Irish Times artilce represents very significant coverage with him as the sole subject of the article. -- Whpq (talk) 16:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

She is not famous. Furthermore, she hasn't done anything special Bardia666 (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete - appears to fail WP:N. The author made claims of notability, but I am not able to find any WP:RS. If they are found, I'm happy to remove this nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 16:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I would like to remove this AfD as the original author has now added WP:RS to the article. Thank you. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 00:50, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete - appears to fail WP:N. I am unable to find substantial WP:RS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable company article; reads like advertising. No incoming links, no secondary sources found. I cannot see why this should belong in an encyclopaedia. –Moondyne 15:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure. SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

4X4: Hummer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete - appears to fail WP:N. I am unable to find WP:RS. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 15:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for those. As such I'd like to withdraw my nomination. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

List catalogs non-notable "title," is entirely unsourced (with the consequent BLP problems/violations), and is grossly incomplete with no indication it can be verifiably completed. As a general measure of relative notability, Google News turns up 12 references to "Hustler Honey", compared to roughly 1200 for "Penthouse Pet" and roughly 11,000 for "Playboy Playmate." The list is generally unsourced, and includes entries where models appearing under one-name pseudonyms are associated with the names of more prominent performers, presumably via OR. (There are also many models identified only by first names, which is encyclopedically useless.) Although the magazine has apparently run this feature since the mid-1970s, the list covers only the last few years, without explanation. Finally, highlighting the BLP problem, the list has stood for an extended period of time falsely identifying a real, named person as a "Hustler Honey," and linking to her article, and other, unlinked names potentially raise similar problems. If this identification is appropriate to include in Knowledge (XXG), a category would do the job and reduce if not eliminate the major BLP issues, so long as the related articles meet sourcing requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 15:41, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Snow Keep. NAC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject has never played in a regular or postseason game at the professional level. No major awards from college, and playing DI has been previously held insufficient for notability. Doesn't meet the threshold of significant coverage imo. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ATHLETE.Horrorshowj (talk) 15:08, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Doesn't meet WP:POLITICIAN, and the article reads like a campaign document. This isn't what Knowledge (XXG) is for. Of course, should he actually contest the seat, and actually win - then no prejudice to re-creation, though I would suggest the campaigning spiel needs to be trimmed. Bios are supposed to be about the person - this one is mostly composed of his local press releases. Black Kite 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, having only been featured in local press, in connection with his role as PPC. WP:POLITICIAN does not deem candidates to be notable in themselves, and what press coverage he has had stems solely from that role, not from any other notable actions or attributes. Saalstin (talk) 14:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. Although the GNG says that the depth of coverage may vary according to the nature of the coverage, it does not disqualify local press entirely. He's lost one election, moved, and is preparing to stand for election again, so he doesn't quite hit the scope of WP:ONEEVENT. I have an editorial reservation or two about the article, but those aren't strong enough for me to say that the article should be deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment He is a candidate. Nothing more. Repeated candidate doesn't make him any more notable (until he does something like passes records for standing and losing more than anyone else). We delete ones like this all the time, it's an article seeking to make notability, rather than reporting it --Saalstin (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


Delete. Then if he wins give him three lines. It is bad enough that less notable MP's get detailed mentions in this encyclopedia. Three lines would have been it in the good old publications. Why there are reams of text about a man who has just stood for one seat, failed, and is now standing for another, I cannot fathom. Seriously if every PPC in every seat had a page this large there would be at least 3000 more nonsense entries--OutragedOfOake (talk) 01:15, 21 September 2009 (UTC)--OutragedOfOake (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment OutragedofOake a new, near single purpose account.--Saalstin (talk) 02:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
Comment To delete a key candidate in a key marginal in the run up to a general election that might well see a landslide and the possible terminal decline of a ruling party might not seem to exhibit much wisdom. The decision process ought, however, continue. Verthandi

Delete this page, it is simple a campaigning tool. The big problem with this page, and indeed the use of wiki pages for campaigning, is that it draws down the value of all the other pages. This article 'quotes' fifteen references. Five are the local Tory party website, produced by the subject of the article, four are from paid for adverts placed in the local press, written by the subject of the article and of the remaining six, three are bio pieces, one used twice and two are focused on other people with a comment from the subject included. How can this justify eight lines of biographical details and amazingly thirty five lines of text about beliefs,campaigns and promises. It is just free self promotion on the internet.

  • If this were the standard for all entries in the political sphere any MP's page would be thousands of lines long, overflowing with any press releases they wished to write about themselves. I assume this is why in general prospective political candidates do not qualify as significant for entry in this encyclopedia. This page is of little to no value to the wider audience. I think that it should be removed. I also think that many entries about elected politicians are abused, but, they have at least been elected.--Milk76 (talk) 09:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep. As I have explained on the article's talk page, the criteria for politicians are indeed satisfied. The second category of people worthy of inclusion is "major local political figures who have received significant press coverage", for which Formosa clearly qualifies, as you can see from the numerous press articles cited on his page. Furthermore, the third criterion states that although being an unelected candidate for political office does not in itself guarantee notability, such people can nevertheless be notable if they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article", which again, Formosa clearly has and continues to do. As for "free self-promotion", if there is an article about Taunton's MP, then in the interests of fairness and balance there should be one about his main opponent, who receives just as much media coverage as Browne himself. QuantockWarrior (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2009 (UTC) Independent references. I have just added some more (totally independent) references from the Wellington Weekly News, Somerset County Gazette and Western Daily Press. This demonstrates still further Formosa's high profile in the local media which amply satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. QuantockWarrior (talk) 14:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

  • 'PPC campaigns' is not evidence of notability, it's evidence that he's a PPC, which is not notable. If he mattered for having done something important, that would be something else, but this article is only seeking to promote him. I'd also like to note that your concerns about 'the interests of fairness and balance', we have policies - Neutral Point of View, Notability, and WP:POLITICIAN. Any party, or supporter's idea of 'fairness and balance' doesn't come into it, and if it did we would have articles on every PPC in every constituency, circonscription, riding, and district. We don't, because very few of them are notable. Being a 'main opponent' is irrelevant. WP is an encyclopaedia, not a news outlet, and not Mark Formosa's self-promotion page. --Saalstin (talk) 14:48, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It really is most tiresome to have to constantly repeat myself until I am blue in the face, but he we go again: the WP:POLITICIAN criteria are amply justified. Here is what I wrote on the talk page: He is a "major local political figure who has received significant press coverage", as the criteria demand. Not having been elected does not disqualify him as such. A person can be a major local political figure if he is regularly reported on by the press for having involved himself in politics, which Formosa has done. This is clarified by the third criterion, which states that although being an unelected candidate for political office does not in itself guarantee notability, such people can nevertheless be notable if they have received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article". It is clear, therefore, that candidates who are not elected can indeed be featured, as long as they satisfy that stipulation, which Formosa does." You subject me to patronising lectures about Knowledge (XXG)'s policies. I am well aware of these policies, which is why I have repeatedly explained why the WP:POLITICIAN criteria are fulfilled. In relation to Neutral Point of View, this rests upon whether a candidate is notable or not, which comes back to the WP:POLITICIAN criteria. There is no infringement of either policy. The article is not only seeking to promote him, and anyone is more than welcome to add, for example, criticism from Formosa's opponents as Mr Browne's opponents have done to his page. QuantockWarrior (talk) 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete. Two people are here supporting keeping this nonsense. I may be anti all the local politicians but QuantockWarrior works with the subject of the article and Verthandi is a weekly press commentator and supporter of the party locally. Hardly independent opinion of who a major figure is. To compare, the Labour PPC for the same area has only been selected for a quarter as long as the Tory subject of this article. A simple search of the local paper finds dozens of articles including him in too. I am sure the same would be true for UKIP and any other party's candidates, like almost every other prospective candidate in the country they have no Wiki pages. This is why it is madness to have PPC pages (just because local Tory party members think that their guy is notable don't make it so).--OutragedOfOake (talk) 18:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Speedily deleted by Uncle G. TNXMan 14:32, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Information already exists at Asbestos_and_the_law TParis00ap (talk) 14:12, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Speedy declined. This is an advertisement or press release. No assertion of notability. No non-trivial hits on Google Scholar or Google. No independent 3rd party coverage. The article is a description of a product range with no assertion as to why it is notable or significant. If the PR material was removed there would be no verifyable content left. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment - that third story is also covered in the more-notable Telegraph. A Gnews search also found this 1995 article in The Independent (pay per view but an extract is available) which appears to have the Henry as the primary subject. As an aside, I'd also have to echo Chris's point above about their prevalence, at least in the United Kingdom. Dreaded Walrus 18:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Move to incubator. Largely OR - as pointed out, needs expert treatment Black Kite 11:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Original research essay, is attemtping to argue a point. Zazaban (talk) 12:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Fox River Grove, Illinois. Nothing to merge, and redirects are cheap. NW (Talk) 18:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Fox River Grove Police Department (Illinois) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Village police department with 12 employees. No indications of notability. Prod removed without comment. Hut 8.5 12:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The article seems not to be notable for Knowledge (XXG) standards and has very few to little references --about lets say only eleven sources-- not sure if they're even reliable because I followed two of them and none matched the supposed "facts". The grammar and structure of the whole article seem unfinished and seemingly child-like sentences not worthy of Knowledge (XXG)'s standards. There's a lot of original research and biased points of view. There's also a sign of "ownership" of the article with some of the contributors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Electrode Light (talk • contribs) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete - What's the point of having an un sourced article? It's just a waste of space, no wonder people don't trust Knowledge (XXG) and it's because of these kinds of articles. I say that it can only be kept if the editors fix it up soon because I think it's better to have nothing than a page full of nonsense! Greene Leigh Online (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, I think this is a notable children's animation series. JIP | Talk 17:51, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep - Clearly notable TV series. Lots of GNews hits, many of which involve substantial coverage. (A handful of examples from a quick search: , , , , .) AfD shouldn't be used for cleanup of articles on obviously notable subjects.--Chris Johnson (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep, stubify I would support rewriting this article from scratch due to sourcing problems. Our audience is the general public, not people who are already fans and want to read each season's summary. Shii (tock) 19:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Clearly notable series per sources such as those found by Chris Johnson. If there are problems with the content, then remove the problematic or "nonsense" content, but I don't see a good reason to delete the article altogether. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 20:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Snow Keep AFD is not cleanup. It's aired on major networks in several nations and has a wide fanbase. Concerns about the quality of an article should be addressed in other venues, including the article's talk page, but this process doesn't work by allowing deletion just because of poor writing. Certainly there is extreme plotcruft that can be removed here. Nate • (chatter) 04:51, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The Snowball Clause cannot be invoked (actually, you'd be asking for a Speedy Keep) as it appears to be a nomination given in good faith and has at least one "delete" recommendation. On the other hand, the citations mentioned in the discussion would be better served if they were inserted in the article itself. 147.70.242.54 (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn. Canley (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Peter Stewart is a non-notable academic. I have made a good effort to tart up the article before bringing this AfD, but basically 1) We can't verify the biographical information 2) His theory is on the fringe of mainstream medicine - proponents acknowledge this. (eg. "Stewart's equations are largely unknown outside a small circle of anesthesiologists and intensivists.") An acceptable solution to me apart from deletion would be to move the article to one about Stewart's theory and the criticism of it. (Although there's not much, because the overwhelming majority of experts in the area ignore it or are unaware of it.) RupertMillard (Talk) 10:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I withdraw the nomination RupertMillard (Talk) 10:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was no consensus. There is no consensus for deletion per WP:GNG or for retention per WP:BAND; neither argument came on top here. MuZemike 00:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I see no indication that they meet the requirements in WP:BAND. They've been nominated for one little award (so little that the article about that award wasn't even created until less than two weeks ago) so this certainly doesn't count as a "major music award" or "major music competition" as described in the requirement linked above. As for substantial coverage in independent sources, all I see is three sentences in Seventeen and someone's blog. No album released yet, no charting singles, no nothing. And for a band that's supposed to be the WP:up and coming next big thing (which is not an appropriate reason for an article anyway), not that many people are looking them up on Knowledge (XXG) (pageview stats). rʨanaɢ /contribs 00:13, 13 September 2009 (UTC) rʨanaɢ /contribs 11:09, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete, no charting albums (actually, that unreleased album should be up for AFD too), non-notable label (which was recently speedied), nominated for a minor award that they might not even win (we'll see tonight). No prejudice against recreation if they do explode onto the charts overnight...or something like that. As of now, they fail WP:BAND for the reasons described above. talkingbirds 16:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Striking comment They lost the award, so I'm definitely going delete. If they would have won this minor award, I would have been a little more lenient on the deletedeletedelete argument. But simply being nominated for a small award that will probably not be introduced again next year & was not presented on-air is not enough justification to pass WP:BAND. talkingbirds 21:13, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This band article clearly satisfies WP:BAND, and therefore should be kept.

The guidance's test for band notablity is that it meet any 1 of 12 criteria. Here, as is discussed below, the band meets 3 of the criteria. Three times what it must meet to qualify.

1. Subject of Multiple Non-trivial Independent Reliable Public Works. One criterion that it has met is #1, in that it has "been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the itself and reliable."

Specifically, among others, as the article itself reflects, (a) Seventeen Magazine (in their article last month: " "Band Spotlight: The Shells"), and (b) Queens Chronicle (in their article just this month) have published reviews on the band and its work.

The review of the band by Seventeen Magazine (which has a circulation of 22 million, 65 years in circulation, is the #1 magazine subscribed to by college freshmen, and has the 39th-highest circulation in the US) is wholly consistent with Seventeen Magazine''s band review format. In part, the review states:

Band Spotlight: The Shells

Album: Written Roads (coming out October 8!)

Myspace: myspace.com/bombshelltrio

The vibe: Indie folk-rock mixed with a little R&B. Very Dixie Chicks meets Indigo Girls.

Why you should listen: These three gorgeous girls wrote most of the songs on their new album themselves! Their original sound was dubbed "cosmo country" — a blend of city pop with folk. Love it!

Our fave songs: Give a Little Take a Little, Wrong from the Start

Furthermore, the proposing deleter's statement above that the Seventeen article is only three sentences long is an innaccurate and misleading exageration, as can be seen by inspecting the review. Not that it matters--it is the magazine's format of choice, and it is appears to work for Seventeen inasmuch as the magazine is the largest-selling magazine to US college freshman. Importantly, it also meets the criteria of the guidance, as the guidance indicates that what is meant by "trivial" are those articles that do not do more than “simply report performance dates, release information or track listings, or the publications of contact and booking details in directories.” This article clearly does much more than that, providing the reviewer's actual reviews and opinion of the band and the band's CD.

The review by Queens Chronicle this month (a newspaper which has been reporting for 30 years and now reaches 400,000 readers) says inter alia that:

"The Shells, one of the hottest rock groups around, are one of three finalists vying for the MTV Best Breakout NYC Artist Award. The trio consists of singers Jessica Waltz, Melanie Klaja and Carrie Welling, who lives in Astoria. Along with a set of backup musicians, they frequently play shows in western Queens and elsewhere in the city.... he MTV competition set for Sept. 11 at the Fillmore New York at Irving Plaza in downtown Manhattan....
These sirens warrant it. They’re great performers and are about to release their first album, “Written Roads,” next month. Winning the best breakout artist award would be the icing on the cake, as it brings with it performance and licensing deals with MTV. The award be presented during the network’s Video Music Awards, set for Sept. 13 at Radio City Music Hall.

This article also meets the guidance's standards, and is clearly non-trivial. These two reviews together are sufficient to satisfy the guidance's first criterion.

(They are addition to various established music industry blogs. Blogs, of course, are a not uncommon venue for written reviews of indie bands. The reviews themselves, as well as the fact that the band was reviewed, arguably also reflect the notability of the band – they are highly positive reviews, as distinct from mentions along the lines of “nothing special; much like any other band".)

2. Nominated for Major Music Award. A second criterion that this article meets is #8, in that the band has been "nominated for a major music award."

The MTV Video Music Awards are clearly major music awards. (Despite the proposing deleter’s anti-peacock characterization of the VMA as a “little” award. Furthermore, while he notes that it is “one” award, that is of course the requisite number under this guidance).

The band was nominated for the "MTV VMA Best Breakout New York City Artist Award", as you can clearly see from the official rules.

As you can see here, the MTV VMA logo attaches to official releases regarding this award, clearly calling it the MTV VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Award.

Other official communications refer to the award as a VMA as well, and the award was given out at the official MTV VMAs ceremony.

The award appears to be a new VMA, and information with regard to the VMA (and, hence the Knowledge (XXG) article on it) have naturally only appeared recently. But that of course doesn't warrant exclusion (as the proposing deleter appears to suggest, when he seeks to create a standard that does not appear in the guidance of “when was a Knowledge (XXG) article created on it?)-- any more than a new Grammy or Oscar would warrant exclusion. And the VMAs have a long history of introducing new awards and pulling old awards).

3. Won or Placed in a Major Music Competition. A third criterion that this article meets is #9, in that the band has "won or placed in a major music competition." The competion for the above award was a major one, in that it was an MTV competition (MTV being a major name in the music field), the competition at the outset involved 190 bands, the competition between the final three nominee bands was held at a major venue (The Fillmore at Irving Plaza; a major 1,100-person NYC venue).

As to the editor who suggested he would have voted for inclusion had they won, but will not as they only came in the top 3 (out of 190), I would point out that that his analysis is at odds with the guidance. The guidance treats all nominees -- whether they win or place -- as being notable. Thus, if you believe that the winner would be notable, the top 3 nominee shoudl be treated as notable as well.

Irrelevant discussion. The proposing deleter focuses on the number of pageviews of this new article. First, that’s simply not a test under the guidance. Second, the number of pageviews of this article are far more per day than the number of pageviews of, say, the article on "The Shells (doo wop band)" from which this band is disambiguated. And – someone may know how to determine the number – from what I can see far more than a substantial number and proportion of Knowledge (XXG) articles.

Also completely irrelevant is the proposing deleter’s discussion of what criteria the band does not meet. As indicated earlier – all that is asked for is that the band meet 1 criterion (if it only meets 1, of course it will not meet the other 11 – no need to discuss them).

Aside. As an aside, it is more than slightly troubling that this entire discussion came about as follows: (a) I indicated to one editor that on Sept. 8 that I had a difference of opinion with him on a separate issue (see ; (b) while he and I had never edited the same article before, suddenly I found him wikistalking me and making 100s of reversions to my entries, with special attention to those articles I created (see -- when I reported the incident, it was closed out as "no violation", though there were suggestions that I could follow up my wikistalking complaing elsewhere and that wikistalking was innapropriate behavior); which was followed by (c) him appealing to another editor (see – who (d) then proposed deletion here (as well as at another of related pages that I started -- something the initial editor didn't even do). My wikistalker has suggested that my charge is untrue -- but I am confident that if anyone checks his many edits in the days after he and I first communicated, that will see clearly that the vast majority of his hundreds of edits were to undo my edits on various pages I had touched that he had followed me to, as previously indicated. I'm at a loss. I'm just trying to be a helpful contributing editor, but I've apparently crossed the wrong editor who has made it his life's work this week to undo my (hopefully helpful) edits, and the baton has now been passed to an equally enthusiastic second editor.

In summary, this band clearly meets the WP:BAND criteria. Three times over. While I understand that the goal of standards is to not have non-notable garage cover bands whose best claim to fame is that they placed at a local church “best band of the church” competition, or had a write-up in a school newpaper as to when they were next playing, or whose best award experience was placing for the “best band on our block” award, this band is clearly far above those criteria. Allowing this article to remain is in accord with Knowledge (XXG)’s main policy of being comprehensive.

I'll leave friendly notices at a limited number of spots for editors who may have reason to have interest in following or joining this discussion. Thanks.

References

  1. http://www.nature.com/search/executeSearch?sp-q=Jane+Burgermeister&sp-p=all&sp-c=25&sp-m=0&sp-s=date_descending&include-collections=journals_nature%2Ccrawled_content&exclude-collections=journals_palgrave%2Clab_animal&sp-a=sp1001702d&sp-sfvl-field=subject%7Cujournal&sp-x-1=ujournal&sp-p-1=phrase&submit=go
  2. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Burgermeister+J
  3. US Magazines by Circulation
  4. Seventeen Circulation
  5. "Seventeen is the Number 1 magazine Subscribed to by College Freshmen"
  6. Band Spotlight: The Shells, Seventeen Magazine, Aug. 5, 2009
  7. Band Spotlight: The Shells, Seventeen Magazine, Aug. 5, 2009
  8. Mastrosimone, Peter C., Editor in Chief, "The Shells need your vote in MTV contest", Queens Chronicle, Sept. 10, 2009
  9. Mastrosimone, Peter C., Editor in Chief, "The Shells need your vote in MTV contest", Queens Chronicle, Sept. 10, 2009
  10. "MTV's VMA Best Breakout NYC Artist Contest Official Rules"
  11. "MTV Video Music Awards '09 Best Breakout NYC Artist"

--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

      • Way too long. But in response to your comments: 1) No, the band has not been a subject of substantial coverage. What you claim is "part of" the Seventeen review is actually the entire review—they say almost nothing, not substantial in the least. 2&3) The "Best Breakout New York Band" thing was not a competition they were involved in, they didn't win it, and it was not major (it's so minor it's not even listed anywhere on the VMA's website, and the article about it is up for deletion). rʨanaɢ /contribs 02:22, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Rjanag makes some misleading misstatements above. Again: 1) as indicated above the article meets the precise requirements of criterion 1 (not some new characterization introduced by Rjanag above); 2) the Seventeen review clearly exceeds the non-trivial test as stated in criterion 1 of and quoted above; 3) the criterion is not as Rjanag incorrectly suggests it that the band win the award, but that it win or place, which is what the band did out of the 190 bands in the competition; 4) Rjanag's suggestion that The Shells were not involved in the MTV VMA Best Breakout NYC Band competition is quite simply patently false, as demonstrated by the above citations; 5) MTV VMAs are clearly major; and 6) the article on this VMA being up for deletion is the work of the proposing deleter here, and should fail for the same reasons as here.--VMAsNYC (talk) 02:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep “Lack of notability” better applies to things like some recent fiasco where this Australian business consultant paid a Wikipedian admin to write a Knowledge (XXG) article about him. The guy was just one of these guys who preaches “OK, fall back into the arms of your associates and trust them to catch you. Do you feel the ‘magic’?” So it was deleted. And rightfully so. This article is about a band that was an MTV finalist. It is obviously notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia with 6,886,644 articles. Put it into perspective; our The Simpsons article (an American animation featuring toilet humor) has over 200 references and we’ve also got a separate article devoted to covering every single episode (List of The Simpsons episodes). Moreover, every single episode has its own Knowledge (XXG) article! So, of course, an article on a rock band that was featured on MTV is notable enough. I suspect the origins of this MfD AfD is nothing more than shrapnel from some pissing contest between editors who have gone to blows. Greg L (talk) 03:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • The Simpsons are notable as described in the article, this band is not. Also, this is an AfD, not an MfD, and I have no idea what "pissing contest" you're talking about—perhaps you should actually look into the histories before making vague accusations with no basis. rʨanaɢ /contribs 03:17, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Quoting you: The Simpsons are notable as described in the article, this band is not. Gee, you didn’t even use the qualifier “IMHO”. I do note that your interest in this article seems to have started four days ago over cover art and non-free content and the exchange there makes for interesting reading (“the “f-word” being used once by an editor who weighed in on that thread). It appears, in my humble opinion, that this is much to do about ruffled feathers and edit disagreements. You have your reasons for doing what you do. You and I appear to share precious little common ground on this issue, so we’ll have to agree to disagree. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 03:54, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see what relevance the NFCR thread you linked to has; I was not involved in that discussion, I only stepped in to stop a shouting match that has started. My "interest" in the article, if you can call it that, started because after intervening there I noticed how terrible this article was. But you are right that I have "reasons for doing what I do"—one of those reasons is keeping junk out of the encyclopedia. rʨanaɢ /contribs 05:01, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. This is basically promotional. The links supplied as references either lack somwewhat (read completely) in independence of the subject (or of MTV, the promoters). Otherwise, the references are TRIVIAL mentions, directory listing of the nominees, or fail WP:RS - especially in relation to the blogs and press releases. Ohconfucius (talk) 04:47, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I recognize that you and the proposing deleter here and you have a strong working relationship, but that aside I believe your comments here are simply incorrect. There is no indication whatsoever of lack of independence. The references clearly exceed the "trivia" test set by the guidance, as is evidence by the above quotes. 30-year old magazines with 400,000 to 22 million in circulation are not reliable sources? I think that's stretching it just a bit. As detailed above, this band article meets 3 of the criteria for "keep", when only meeting 1 criterion is what's called for. And your deletion just now at of pertinent sourced material from the very article that is being considered for deletion here (and which you are commenting upon) strikes me as decidedly innapropriate.--VMAsNYC (talk) 04:59, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a quick response that our "strong working relationship" happens to be cooperation over one article over a period of about two months. I am a significant contributor to a fairly large number of articles, and as such, I cooperate with a fairly large number of editors. As for my deletion of "pertinent sourced material", from the point of view of WP:COPY and WP:RS, those were as good as unsourced. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:01, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't know whether this group squeaks past the notability guidelines or not, but the article is clearly written to be promotional. It includes biographical material (sang from a young age! double major in college!) which is inappropriate for an outfit of this little renown, it makes a big deal out of a minor, largely unheard-of award nomination (not to mention creating an already-deleted article for the record company), and it quotes obscure sources (and an obscure page at a known source) at excessive length. References to The Shells or their members have been dropped into many other articles. User:VMAsNYC has done a much more industrious and polished job than the usual promotional editor, but in the end it's still promotional. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep This effort at deletion waste of time appears to me to be fueled by personality clash. The band was nominated for a MTV Video Music Award.. That's a major music award meeting the requirement under WP:Band. Also, its multiple reviews in two widely circulated decades old magazines meets the multiple articles requirement, and the top-3 nomination to a 190-competitors MTV competition satisfies the "major music competition nomination" criteria. Looking at the history mentioned in the aside, and the exaggerations here by Rjanang, I must say that the motive behind the nomination by Rjanag is especially dubious--I'm swayed by Greg L in this regard. Finally, people should stick to whether it meets the standards of WP:Band (which it does), there are lots of all over the place. discussion and characterization tha're not tracking the standards at all.Haltzman (talk) 12:41, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
— Haltzman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep the subject meets WP:MUSIC, notwithstanding the decidedly overeager adding of this group's name to virtually every page even remotely related to them or their style of music. The MTV coverage and media attention are sufficient to demonstrate the group's importance. There are problems with promotional tone, but this is not the proper theater for dealing with that. I recommend moving this page to The Shells (folk band), as The Shells (doo wop band) was inappropriately bounced out of the "The Shells" spot for this article, but I suppose this isn't the proper theater for dealing with that, either. Chubbles (talk) 13:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. As per the lengthy post above, the band has met the lowest rung of the notability ladder. I agree that the bio in the last section is unencyclopedic and uses an unreliable source. Therefor, I will delete this section. The rest of the article is also too full of flattery; the positive reviews are unnecessary and they should be deleted as well. The only material we really need in this article are the notable facts. A stub is all that is required. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:07, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Rather than parroting the TL;DR post above that misinterprets policy, I would appreciate it if you could state in your own words how you feel the band "has met the lowest rung of the notability ladder". Specifically, how the award it was nominated for and lost is "major", and how the blurb in Seventeen is "substantial coverage". rʨanaɢ /contribs 18:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I found it informative. The band "won or placed in a major competition". Done. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Again, like I said, what makes the award major? rʨanaɢ /contribs 20:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
          • There is no absolute objective criteria of "majorness". It's a judgement call. In my judgement, the VMAs are major. In yours they are not. We have no consensus on this. Therefor no consensus for deletion. Therefor keep. That's my view.
          • But, let me emphasize, the more important issue here is that the article has all the hallmarks of an act of self-promotion, something we can't allow. The appropriate action is to carefully monitor the content. AfD is not the right venue for solving this problem. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:36, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
            • I would add, that among the objective criteria that militate in favor of this being viewed as a major competition are a) "who" is running the competition (MTV--the world's largest music tv station), b) the number of competitors (190), c) where the competition was held (the 1,100 person Fillmore at Irving Plaza), d) the judges of the competition (band member from Cobra Starship, Fefe Dobson, and MTV person), and that the award given the winnner of the competition is a VMA (a well-known major award). These objective criteria distinguish the competition from other competitions that are not major competitions.--VMAsNYC (talk) 17:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 09:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Strong keep well referenced article which needs some work still but no WP:DEADLINE. Nominator: WP:TEA, thanks. Ikip (talk) 10:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. The only significant coverage appears to be in their local newspaper, and the award nomination, albeit minor, may nudge them up the notability ladder a tad, but being nominated as the best not yet famous band in New York (and not winning) is hardly convincing in itself. The article on their album should be deleted or userified until significant coverage exists, though that's a separate issue. The best approach would seem to be to userify the article(s) until notability is established, which seems a strong possibility, but isn't there yet.--Michig (talk) 10:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep seems well sourced, and award show seems to be significant (didnt MTV used to be a music video channel? i have this strange memory of watching music vids on it). at this time, content doesnt appear promotional, which is nice. I agree that a stub is all the band justifies at this point. I would tend toward not having a separate article for the album unless it charts, but considering release is just weeks away, may be silly to delete it. maybe a merge of content.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Yes, MTV is a music video channel, but they weren't on it. They were nominated for a little award that is only tangentially connected to MTV (it has MTV's name on it, but is actually a newly-created award sponsored by Time Warner in conjunction with MTV and barely publicized—publicized so little, in fact, that it's not listed anywhere on MTV's website and wasn't shown during the VMA awards except on very local television). And they didn't even win it. rʨanaɢ /contribs 16:40, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. That the article was created by a sock emphasizes how promotional it is. If the group actually becomes successful, an article can always be created then. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I initially recused myself from this discussion due to personal attacks from VMAsNYC, but now that "they" have been blocked I'll weigh in: Weak Keep after extreme trimming. Only the very bare minimum is needed on this band, but I do believe they are notable enough for an article. Placing in the top three in a competition with almost 200 bands from a major metropolitan area is a major accomplishment. The prize is non-trivial and despite not being aired on MTV, it was aired on MTV2 (according to the references). VMAsNYC et al was way too promotional in their efforts to create and link to this article, but that doesn't change the fact that the Shells (and MeTalkPretty and Red Directors for that matter) meet WP:BAND 8/9. Trim the WP:SPAM and remove the promotional links but there should be an article. The album should also be merged into the article(After further review of the article, aside from the track listing and the album cover, there is no additional information on the album page. I'm going to boldly redirect since there is nothing of substance to merge.) and The Shells (disambiguation) should be moved back to The Shells.
Aside to Greg L: Stating "IMHO" isn't really necessary. By default we are all just expressing our opinion so there is no need to explicitly state that fact.
 ~ Paul/C 17:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
After further review, (see below) it seems that there were other local bands that won "Best Breakout Artist" and presumably the award was televised in place of the NYC artist in their local area on MTV2. The Band was never televised nationally, therefore I vote to Delete. ~ Paul/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As irritated as I am with the amount of my time that's been wasted by multiple editors who all turned out to be sockpuppets of each other here, ultimately I think this band just about scrapes over the notability threshold as Psantoro states above - it really all comes down to how major one considers the award. Heavy trimming of promotional fluff is indeed necessary, but I'm not sure deletion is quite warranted. ~ mazca 22:09, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Just for an update on the award...its article was redirected (not deleted) to the main MTV article. rʨanaɢ /contribs 22:22, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
      • True. There's an element of notability suggested by the award, but given Rjanag's point that notability is pretty weak. In the absence of much in the way of substantial coverage elsewhere; I have to concur with delete here. Without the promotional aspect, this band is pretty obscure and insufficient reliable-source info is really available for a worthwhile article. ~ mazca 21:57, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep They were nominated for a major music video which is a VMA. Which allows them to have an article based on Wiki rules! Does not deserve a delete. They are MTV Award nominees. JFlash54 (talk) 15:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete. I am not seeing significant independent coverage in the 4 references on the article. It is just PR stuff and a local competition, which they didn't win. If the competition had got them some significant coverage in regional media then that would make it a keep but I don't see references to that effect at the moment. I guess they could be notable once the album gets released if it gets non-trivial coverage (reviews etc) in independent media. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Note that I removed a significant amount of the content in an effort to trim the article down as I outlined above. There were a handful more references, so you might want to take a look at the older versions before judging on the lack of references. ~ Paul/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Wait, WHAT? There were 7 other winners? WTF? I'm changing my vote and I think the redirect for the award is a mistake also. ~ Paul/C 00:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Disputed PROD. Has insufficient visible verifiable references from reliable sources.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 09:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll see if I can dig up some contemporary reviews or other newssources. 2fort5r (talk) 11:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to Nami Tamaki. Ikip (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Incomplete nomination by IP 98.248.33.198. I have no opinion on the mertis or otherwise of this case. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Above comment copied from talk page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Proposed deletion for lack of sources and context, WP:PROD tag removed without reason, but article update reveals that this is a mere idea: "The Regency Parliamentary is a new idea, and there are no countries using this system, however, it may please the fans of the moviments like pro-monarchy or pro-parliamentry and may please the people that isn't fans of these moviments but like the democracy and rights of every citizen." Tikiwont (talk) 07:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I don't buy it.

The website looks suspiciously like a hoax to me. Tell-tale signs include (but are not limited to):

  • The few pictures (I've only found two!) of the "base" where George Maat supposedly lives are dubious at best. Low resolution, strange lighting, "ghosting" around objects. Bad Photoshop job?
  • A traceroute of http://www.anetstation.com/ seems to point to a server somewhere around Phoenix, AZ. Oh, that's just the website, you say? The actual web radio-stream is originating from Antarctica? Could be, BUT;
  • http://www.anetstation.com/MP3/ANETSTATIONDOTCOM.m3u is simply a playlist of MP3-files in http://www.anetstation.com/MP3/ ! Not exactly my definition of "web radio".
  • The web cams linked to on the page do not show pictures from Ross Ice Shelf where the base is supposedly located.
  • Visiting the "talking help desk" and clicking on "Are you REALLY in the South Pole?" results in a sound file with the words "I screwed up again, I don't deserve to live" being played.
  • Furthermore; the same "help desk"-page has a link to http://load-o-crap.com/ further suggesting the whole "'A' Net Station"-project is.. just that.
  • How does George Maat make a living? Where does he get supplies from? Has he really lived in Antarctica some 15-20 years now? Not even researchers stay that long. I'm pretty sure it would drive anyone crazy being in Antarctica for more than a year or two, especially if one were to be living there alone.

I say it's bunk, but go ahead and prove me wrong (now would be a good time to post pictures, George!). Until then, I move that this article be deleted or at least changed to reflect that the whole thing is a hoax. —Per Hedetun (talk) 05:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Strong keep A simple look at the book sourced in the article shows this is not a hoax. Nominator, did you happen to talk to the creator before you put this up for deletion? I am having trouble finding sources on this station beyond one book. Delete 3 books mention this webstation in passing. No articles about this station on google news, not a single one: i find that hard to believe. Lord the picture on the website looks so incredibly fake. http://www.anetstation.com/ Ikip (talk) 08:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
No, I didn't contact the creator of the website. Seeing as he edits Knowledge (XXG) himself, he's more than welcome to join this debate publicly. And you're not going to find an independent source verifying the Antarctic base. All credible sources say the same thing: there are NO permanent settlers on Antarctica. Here's one example: http://wy.water.usgs.gov/projects/antarctica/htms/facts.htm —Per Hedetun (talk) 09:03, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I was talking about the creator of the article actually, I let them know about this AFD after I asked.
I agree, it seems like there are no sources that I could find. I very, very rarely !vote delete, but this seems like a hoax to me.
This George Matt character who allegedly runs this radio station seems notable enough. Same guys picture is in the banner on this radio web site. So why this web site is attached to him is a mystery to me. Ikip (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Uh, I don't see the resemblance between http://www.anetstation.com/images/georgemaatopt.jpg and http://leidsewetenschappers.leidenuniv.nl/photos/748.jpg ? —Per Hedetun (talk) 09:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Banner: http://gyazo.com/0d05f7624f8bde49b4af9a7ace5cd7f4.png same guy. Same name. Ikip (talk) 09:23, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Really the same person? I'm not so sure. Jawline is different, wrinkles on forehead are different, face is longer on "banner guy". Well, I don't know. Maybe it's just a coincidence that the "Antarctic" guy is called George Maat too. Or "George Maat" is the name of a character for the website, and perhaps the creator of the website was browsing through science journals looking for names, and found this Leiden guy. —Per Hedetun (talk) 09:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree, but it doesn't matter in this AFD anyway, except that it raises questions since we are calling this a hoax. Ikip (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • comment two separate issues - is the radio station real and does it broadcast from where it says it does. It could be real and simply say it broadcasts from the Arctic, in the same way, that 2000ad is published by a Green alien... --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Well... Like I mentioned in my original post, even claiming that "'A' Net Station" is a "web radio station" at all is questionable. Sure, you can listen to songs via the webpage, but it's just a playlist for files located on the server. But web radio to me means the same thing as regular radio: broadcasting stuff. The playlist on the page is more like a "web mixtape" to me. Either way, the "station" certainly isn't located in the Antarctic. I think I've made a pretty strong case trying to disprove that. —Per Hedetun (talk) 10:14, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete - The issue as to whether this station really "broadcasts" from the Ross Ice Shelf or not is not relevant. Hoaxes can be an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia article. For example, The War of the Worlds (radio) and Piltdown Man immediately spring to mind. However, the article as written treats it all as fact, which I find dubious. And the only coverage about it are a book reference and a web article. That isn't sufficient to establish notability regardless of whether it is a hoax. -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

As the Creator of 'A' Net Station ( http://anetstation.com ) this story disturbs me. First my privacy has been invaded by people claiming to be what they are not to "CREATE" a Knowledge (XXG) page about my site, lying about who they were, and then creating a rather uncomplementary public debacle concerning my authenticity. It speaks ill of Knowledge (XXG), and does more to discredit the work of Knowledge (XXG) than to discredit me.

I would respectfully request the story about 'A' Net Station be deleted because I do not want Knowledge (XXG) receiving gratuitous hits for people searching for my website.

Before reading farther, please consider the following questions: If you visit a website, click on a button and immediately find yourself listening to hours upon hours of commercial-free, unique and original quality music are you being hoaxed by the website when it told you this is exactly what you will get? Or are you being hoaxed by the website which offers you quality music to listen to and instead gives you the same old mechanical music industry POP chart soup with a healthy dose of advertising and talk?

Profess a definition of a radio station with an all encompassing accuracy, and an exception can be found. Technically the internet is not capable of "RADIO" broadcasting, merely repeating right? But then what about web-only stations. What then is play on demand? How about a "LIVE" broadcast versus a "RECORDED" one? What is a DJ's job? Why are there no broadcast licenses for internet radio? How is music for broadcast on the internet encoded and transmitted? Define a playlist (music delivery system) , so as to say there is clearly no way a RADIO STATION would use this kind of playlist.

There is a book, there is a cover. Judging the book by the cover has long been decried as less than intellectually acceptable. When you read the following commentary, please try to distinguish between criticism of the cover, versus criticism of the book and content. I don't believe I have seen a single comment regarding the validity of the content.

On the "Inside Page" of 'A' Net Station it clearly states that:"This page is a parody, had it been a real serious page, it would not say this."

If you solemnly say "I don't buy it" it's evident that you didn't get it., which, by the way is the premise of the site you speak of so disparagingly, http://load-o-crap.com . Load-O-Crap advances the observation that "The easiest thing anyone can do on the internet is to publicly demonstrate how stupid they are." - Harvest the stupid and you have the ideal majority. Buying your products, crushing your critics by sheer numbers.".

So please go away. If you don't like 'A' NET STATION, tough beans. Get a life, fight a real dragon, get a little dirty doing something hard instead of pretending to be doing something meaningful with these silly little remote control character assassinations.

I never said I was NOT in Antarctica, vTuner link is NOT dead, There are no "BAD" Photoshop jobs on the site, the "Talking Help Desk"is an "outsourced" Universal help desk, the web cams linked on the site ARE real LIVE webcams broadcasting from Antarctica, how George Maat makes a living is none of your business you little snake-eyed gerbil, I get my supplies from the supply place, just like everybody else, and as for how long I've been in Antarctica and that it would drive me insane, you're probably A#1 right on hootin-tootin kee-rekt. Loonier than a hoot owl. But is my project "BUNK"? or is this story "BUNK"? If your work were called "BUNK" by someone calling themselves anaphrodisiac, and a self-proclaimed Rothbardian-Hoppean-Misesian-paleolibertarian anarchist, computer geek, meat eater, beer drinker and tea connoisseur, you might get a bit offended by the quality of the work that finds its way into the annals of Knowledge (XXG) you friggin' sanctimonious airheads.
Cheers. Respectfully, George Maat24.110.226.10 (talk) 14:56, 22 September 2009 (UTC), 'A' Net Station creator.

  • Delete it doesn't mater whether this station actually exists, whether it is or has broadcasted or whether its located at the bottom of the world or Phoenix, AZ. What matters is whether or not there is significant coverage in reliable sources, which I'm not finding. RadioFan (talk) 17:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


GET THIS STORY OFF OF WIKIPEDIA, DELETE 'A' NET STATION FROM YOUR DISCUSSIONS OR WHATEVER YOU CALL THESE MUTUAL MASTURBATION SESSIONS, AND PLEASE DO IT IMMEDIATELY.THE LONGER THIS REDICULOUS DIALOGUE CONTINUES, THE LESS I RESPECT WIKIPEDIA. IF THE NOSE-PICKER (RadioFan) WHO JUST POSTED THAT HE CAN NOT FIND SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE IN RELIABLE SOURCES IS TO BE BELIEVED (APPARENTLY WIKIPEDIA DEEMS HIM CREDIBLE), THEN YOU FOLKS ARE RUNNING A SERIOUS CREDIBILITY DEFICIT OF YOUR OWN. A FIFTH GRADER COULD FIND SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE AND RELIABLE SOURCES, BUT THEN A FIFTH GRADER MIGHT ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH.

Is it just me, or are you folks using insinuating innuendos to cover for the fact that you are actually incapable of using real scientific methods to prove or disprove your theories? SINCERELY, GEORGE MAAT, 'A' NET STATION CREATOR AND OWNER — Preceding unsigned comment added by User talk:24.110.226.10 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment I'm honored, really. But you really need to stick the notability of this article if don't want to see if deleted. Put your efforts into adding all these reliable sources you refer to rather than diatribes here.--RadioFan (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

What's notable is your pathetic negative and immature attitude. I'm not attempting to confront anyone here, I'm saying PLEASE, I BEG YOU, GO AHEAD AND DELETE THE STORY! I don't believe I see the value in doing your job for you. You don't like what I do, fine, DELETE. REPEAT DELETE, take your sideshow somewhere else. George Maat (not unsigned or anonymous, pencil head).

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

The result was keep. JForget 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Appears to fail WP:BIO. Has one proper reference in Salon.com, and then the "Polk Award Winners" reference appears to be trivial. The other eleven references are from the subject's own site. SchuminWeb (Talk) 04:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep: Having won the Polk award is enough to show notability, per the previous AFD. Subject is worth a short article. Plvekamp (talk) 15:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


Keep: This journalist has made "a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record." Indeed, one could plausibly argue that the Iran-Contra scandal never would have become public knowledge, if not for Robert Parry's investigative journalism. SIGNED: Rick Crawford. 12.72.149.111 (talk) 06:40, 23 September 2009 (UTC) (I've made several wiki edits over the years, but I've never bothered to create an official Account here. Perhaps that means neither my article edits, nor my opinion in this discussion are valued? My IP is dynamically assigned, hence it's not a useful identifier. Anyone is free to contact me via email: Crawford (AT) CS.UCDAVIS.EDU )
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and Merge. I still think that TerriersFans was making a big deal over a small deal. Joe Chill (talk) 18:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this library. Joe Chill (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Non-notable high school coach. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 04:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete - seems to fail WP:ACADEMIC. I can't find any WP:RS citing his work. But I am not an expert in this field and if others can provide such, they should be added to the article. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 03:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete Does not meet notability criteria. Jim Carmel (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. I am not counting BrianY's delete because it is invalid now. Joe Chill (talk) 18:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

A non-notable street. Joe Chill (talk) 02:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per nom. BrianY (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator withdrew with no outstanding delete !votes. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

D.E.L.T.A. Rescue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite notability claims, a turns up "PRweb" and similar press release sites, with few exceptions. I don't see any reliable sources with a normal gsearch either. Doesn't appear to meet WP:ORG. Mr. Vernon (talk) 02:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This section quoted is under "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations: The following sections discuss other alternate methods for establishing notability in specific situations...Note that failure to meet these criteria does not disprove notability if it can be otherwise demonstrated."
The major and first criteria on WP:ORG, Knowledge (XXG):ORG#Primary_criteria has been met and exceeded. I am going to bring up the contradiction this second, alternative section has seemed to cause. I can think of so many organizations which have a local scope which meet all notability guidelines, and yet which would fail this "alternative" criteria.
But I appreciate Mr. Vernon wanting to get more opinions on this subject. I agree with Mr. Vernon that the article should be renamed.Ikip (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Why should sources be not be Local? What policy or guideline says that? A WP:RS is a RS no matter where it is from. Exit2DOS 17:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. This isn't much of an article at the moment; however, it does have the potential to be one, so I would suggest that the best course of action at the moment is to give it a chance. No projudice to re-AfDing it if no improvement is seen in a reasonable time. Black Kite 11:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

This is nothing more than a how-to guide for computer maintenance, and, as such, a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. I prodded the article, but the prod was contested by an editor who added a Google books reference on the subject of computer maintenance and a couple of external links. This does not address the basic issue that this is nothing more than a numbered list of steps to take for computer maintenance. I have a Google books link for chainsaw use and maintenance, but this would not come close to being an adequate reference for a how-to article on chainsaw maintenance. -RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Delete. Possibly an encyclopedic topic, but the present article doesn't offer any content on which a suitable article could be based. ReverendWayne (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Article still needs work, but I'm striking my delete !vote based on improvements. ReverendWayne (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep How to is a matter of style and is rarely a good reason to delete as it may be addressed by ordinary content editing. It seems quite incredible that we do not already have an article about this notable topic and we have to start somewhere. It is our clear editing policy to improve such weak starts rather than to delete them: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." See also Chainsaw#Maintenance. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The case of chainsaw maintenance shows that we already cover such topics. Computer maintenance is a far larger topic but, if we chose to cover it as part of the computer article then we would WP:MERGE the current article not delete it. Please see our deletion policy in which it is explained that alternatives to deletion should be considered first as deletion si only for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
It is not a far larger topic. The article has barely any content at all, and can easily be a section of an article on computer hardware. Stop trying to make this more complex than it is. It is a how-to article, which is strictly forbidden and deletable under WP:NOTHOWTO. I suggest you read that policy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
Delete. Not even close to an encyclopedia article, an entry for a Wikibook at best. Hypothetically one could write an article about computer maintenance or lawn care, but it would be from a completely different angle - this one should be smothered now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The point is that we do have an entry for lawn care which leads to an article which covers this topic. It seems absurd to suggest that we may not have a similar entry for computer maintenance - an activity which employs many millions of technicians and users. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Lawn care is a blue link - a functional reference. If Computer maintenance is deleted, as the nomination suggests, then it would become a red link and so have the effect of leaving our readership at a loss. The current article could be turned into a redirect without deletion and this is one of the suggested alternatives to deletion listed at WP:BEFORE. This is elementary deletion policy - that it is not necessary to delete an article in order to alter it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • As you agree that the topic is notable, please explain how deletion will assist us in covering it. Who is going to write on a topic when they see that their first draft may be so casually deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:59, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The only significant coverage that I can find is a review on a self-published source called Citizen Caine. This has notable actors, but there is no proof that it is a significant part of their careers. From what I have seen in my searches, I highly doubt that it is a notable part of their careers. This film fails WP:NF. Joe Chill (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

The result was Keep. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:21, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Reason This article appears to be original research. The concept is not found in textbooks (at least the ones this editor has checked). The authoring editor has a recent record of promoting the work of a certain Anthony Nicholl Rail such as Rail's (the author of this article?) PhD thesis, which is one of the key supporting citations in this article. Smokefoot (talk) 00:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep (or maybe merge). This is not original research; these terms (at least I'm sure about antisymbiosis) were published by Pearson in the 1970s and I remember seeing them quoted in some other places (including a paper of mine from 2008 ;-). They may not have much current use today, but are at least should be of historical interest. --Itub (talk) 02:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Knowledge (XXG) seem to want to steadily delete all my ('Whitenob') contributions because over the past couple of weeks I have focussed on the work of one person. This is just because I recently read through some of his work, and considered it valuable. I will endeavour not to be so subject specific in future. This particular article does deal with Lewis acids and bases and classical views of bonding that are closer to Nevil Sidgwick than Linus Pauling. The article could be improved with diagrams, which, as a new boy I cannot upload. There is some justification for merging it as a sub-topic within Lewis acids and bases, but the article as it stands does have a distinct character. S.W. ('Whitenob').
  • Comment. It is disappointing that the article was written in a self-standing manner vs a component of HSAB theory or some other previously written article. The pattern indicates lack of perspective or failure to understand that there is context to consider, in my view. Whitenob might bear in mind that Sidgwick might have been an important chemist 60 years ago. Ditto for Linus Pauling, almost. I guess that Knowledge (XXG) does have a role as archiving historic footnotes. I also think that crafting an article by quoting the PhD thesis of one's friend indicates a serious (pathetic, in a literal sense) lack of perspective. Especially when no component that friend's thesis was ever published in refereed journals. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Further comment. I was just writing from memory in my keep comment above. Here's the proper citation for the antisymbiosis paper I was talking about: Pearson, R. G. Antisymbiosis and the trans effect. Inorganic Chemistry 1973, 12, 712–713. According to Pearson, the symbiosis concept was introduced by Jorgensen in 1964 (the 1964 ref. is already cited in the Knowledge (XXG) article). There are still plenty of citations to Pearson's paper in recent years, which suggests to me that some people do find the concept useful or at least worth discussing. --Itub (talk) 17:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Merge to HSAB. I don't see how this is different from hard-soft, either in idea or per article's lede wording. Is it at all a separate issue or even much more than a synonym or sometimes-used technical term for one aspect? Per Smokefoot, would be better to integrate this into an article to which it is at least very tightly related than to write a stand-alone. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep can we please use DOIs when citing articles, saves everybody a lot of time: The Pearson article: Antisymbiosis and the trans effect Ralph G. Pearson Inorg. Chem., 1973, 12 (3), pp 712–713 doi:10.1021/ic50121a052. I am unable to find the Jøergensen article , should be C. K. Jøergensen; Inorg. Chem.; 1971, 10, 1097. but I find instead : Chlorine nuclear quadrupole resonances in platinum(II)-olefin complexes Theodore Lawrence Brown, James P. Yesinowski Inorg. Chem., 1971, 10 (5), pp 1097–1100 doi:10.1021/ic50099a056. More luck here: "Symbiotic" Ligands, Hard and Soft Central Atoms Klixbull Jorgensen Inorg. Chem., 1964, 3 (8), pp 1201–1202 doi:10.1021/ic50018a036. Keep as a historic footnote (early critism on then very novel HSAB theory) but no merge with HSAB theory V8rik (talk) 20:05, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Hold for the moment. My inclination is to merge the symbiosis stuff to HSAB theory and the anti-symbiosis stuff to Trans effect, and so to make this page a redirect to HSAB theory. On the other hand, if Itub and/or V8rik think there is something to be made of this then I would be happy to see the result. Physchim62 (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment The 1964 article btw is still cited for example 2005 doi:10.1016/j.ica.2004.09.039, 2001 doi:10.1002/1099-0682(200103)2001:3<693::AID-EJIC693>3.0.CO;2-J. Knowledge (XXG) is also not confined to what can be found in textbooks (I am disagreeing with Smokefoot here). Knowledge (XXG) is the sum of all knowledge! V8rik (talk) 17:33, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I agree it's still relevant (13 citations to the 1964 paper so far in 2009), and these concepts do appear in some textbooks such as . See also some of the top hits at . I don't think merging is the best solution because this is not "just HSAB" or "just the trans effect", although it is related to both and should obviously be mentioned in those articles (and maybe some other articles on coordination chemistry). If someone came to Knowledge (XXG) with the question "what the hell does symbiosis mean in the context of this coordination chemistry paper I'm reading?", he or she would be better served by a short article clearly defining the term rather than being dumped in the middle of a long article on HSAB out of which 90% of the content is unrelated to the question at hand. Of course, if such a reader has never heard of HSAB, he or she will have to read that article first for background. Note that I'm not saying that the current article is perfect (in particular, I think that citing dissertations it not generally a good idea), but just that it should be allowed to exist as a stand-alone article. --Itub (talk) 20:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Recommend that the Afd be withdrawn (Not sure how that is done). Thanks to all for the comments and diligence.--Smokefoot (talk) 22:28, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. The arguments for retention look more explicit and outweigh the arguments for deletion. MuZemike 00:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

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

non-notable person. Coverage is only in the context of his position as CEO, with no independent notability for him. notability is not inherited. Ironholds (talk) 12:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Delete per Notability (people). From available sources on the Web, there seems to be nothing discussing him except trivial and/or incidental mentions of him as Manobi's CEO. There's nothing to say about him except that he *is* the CEO. Note that we don't (currently) have an article on any of the several entities named Manobi either. • Anakin 14:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

To say "Bill Gates isn't notable because he's the founder and CEO of Microsoft" is to make a wrong and illogical statement. In this case the cause of notability is the child(Microsoft). Bill Gates's(parent) notability stems from the child. Initially the two were inseparable. This is why the rule of notability "may" or "may not" be inherited and its not "policy" and more of a "guideline" notability is not inherited. A guideline is not a "plan" fixed in stone. Guidelines are flexible. In almost every article about Bill Gates, Microsoft will be mentioned. I have yet to find an article about Bill Gates that does not mention Microsoft. Just like one can't talk about Daniel Annerose without mentioning Manobi. Manobi is the claim to fame and notability.

I will say, "Bill Gates is notable because he was the founder and CEO of Microsoft, and he has reliable, third-party sources discussing him which in most cases, if not always mentions Microsoft."

As far as sources on the web goes:

He has been mentioned in major international news organizaion like the bbc and cnn. A mention by these two news organization would not be trivial or incidental.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/2290540.stm --BBC
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0507/03/i_if.01.html --CNN

There is more detail biographical information on a World Trade Organization(WTO) website of a conference he participated in. That would not be trivial or incidental from a major international organization. The information is also in french. He gets quite a bit of coverage in the French press too although not applicable to english Knowledge (XXG), but adds to notability.

http://www.wto.org/english/forums_e/debates_e/daniel_annerose_popup_e.htm

Other more detail biographical information on the web include the following.

http://www.africangreenrevolution.com/en/conferences/2007/speakers/daniel_annerose.html
http://www.acacia.org.za/WEBTIMES/senegal_markets.htm

Here are coverage from other online trade and professional journals.

http://cms.ict4djamaica.org/html/Resources/Agriculture/tabid/70/ctl/Details/mid/436/ItemID/24/Default.aspx
http://www.american.com/archive/2007/july-0707/africans-to-bono-for-gods-sake-please-stop
http://www.redorbit.com/news/technology/168211/hightech_cell_phones_help_africans_trade_crops/
http://www.kiwanja.net/database/article/article_mobiles_poverty.pdf
http://www.iconnect-online.org/News/ict-update-market-information-systems
http://www.africa-investor.com/article.asp?id=1793
http://www.itnewsafrica.com/?p=108
http://www.balancingact-africa.com/news/back/balancing-act_241.html
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/12470.php
http://euroafrica-ict.org/events/forum_agenda

significant blogs.

http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/cat_mobile_phone_projects_third_world.htm?p=5
http://kenyonfarrow.com/2007/07/16/africans-tell-bonostop-sending-aid/

Kacembepower (talk) 17:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

  • No, mentions are still required to be significant. Mentions on the BBC pass "reliable source", but they need to be "significant" on top of that - BBC = significant by definition isn't valid. Any and all valid references to this person are in the context of his work for the company, and don't provide evidence of his notability as an individual. Ironholds (talk) 23:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir I disagree. The rule doesn't say its required. You are interpreting Notability is inherited rigidly, when the article Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states,

""Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some
Valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for
"interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument
just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.
As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions,
it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them
to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)."

Second Notability is Inherited states:

"Notability of one or more members of some group or class of subjects may or may not apply to other possible members of that ::group."

The notability of Manobi(the event) does apply to Daniel Annerose. He is the founder. In this case notability is inherited. You can't separate Daniel Annerose from Manobi.

Third, Articles about people notable only for one event

"If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or
is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. Biographies of people of marginal
notability can give undue weight to the event, and may cause problems for our neutral point of view policy. In such cases,
a merge of the information and a redirect of the person's name to the event article are usually the better options."

Founder of Manobi that provide real time price information on produce to african farmers, via cell phone which can affect wealth/health on a low tech and low wealth continent. He is not low profile being a participant in a TED conference, WTO conference, and other international conferences, indication of high profile. Plus numerous trade publications and significant blogs are noting his innovation to the point of providing detail biographical information is indicative of high profile. He has been mention not just by the BBC, but by CNN in relation to Manobi, indication of high profile.

Lastly, Articles about people notable only for one event states,

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be ::appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance ::of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

This quote is the reason in nutshell why Daniel Annerose is deserving of a separate article.

"Significant"- Manobi provides real time price information on produce to african farmers, via cell phone which can affect
wealth/health on a low tech and low wealth continent.
"if the individual's role within it is substantial"-Daniel Annerose is creator of Manobi
"persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources"- see extensive list above on secondary coverage

Kacembepower (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Since there appears to be more notability for the company than its founder, we really should have an article on the company before creating the article on the person. i will check all the links given before weighing in on deletion.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Sir if you look at most of the information on the web, the two are inseparable. When the company is mentioned, Daniel Annerose is mentioned. You can't separate one from the other or rarily. This is still going back to the notability is not inherited which the very article Knowledge (XXG):Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions states should not be interpreted rigidly.

""Remember that a reason which arguably could be classified as an "argument to avoid", can still have some
Valid points in it. For example, if a person argues for why an article is interesting, and the arguments for
"interesting" are also reasonable arguments for "encyclopedic", it is wrong to summarily dismiss that argument
just because WP:INTERESTING is a section in this essay.
As this essay tries to stimulate people to use sound arguments in deletion discussions,
it is important to realize that countering the keep or delete arguments of other people by simply referring them
to this essay is not encouraged (see also the section Just a policy or guideline below)."

Plus if such a rigid standard is used you do realize that quite a few articles on wikipedia, pretty good and established ones would not qualify and would also be setup for deletion? Articles about people notable only for one event is reason why Daniel Annerose should be given a separate article:

If the event is significant, and if the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate article for the person may be ::appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance ::of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources.

Kacembepower (talk) 16:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep but rename to business name, adding CEO/founder biographic info to article: he has background in agriculture, which belongs in article on his business. Given the probable current, and proven historical lack of decent news coverage for developing world events, i say err on the side of inclusion. Kacembepower, i never said above that we shouldnt have an article, just that the business is the more notable item. if the business didnt exist, daniel would not have an article, but if he sells the business, article stays. and i agree the two are currently inseparable, which is why i want to see basic biographic info in the article. as the article stands, its really not good. the summary of the business model doesnt say much, and the article really doesnt indicate reason for notability itself, though the references seem to. Why not take the time to improve it? I think you make some valid points, but your arguments are rather long and involved, and have a tone which seems to imply that the other editors here are not really doing their job well. its a little offputting. please take this constructively. sincerely, Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep per mercurywoodrose and the overlal sourcing whcih indicates that this is a keep article.--Judo112 (talk) 15:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to United States Senate election in Massachusetts, 2006. MuZemike 23:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Delete Simply being a candidate in an election does not confer notability on a person. All the linked sources are either deadlinks or generic pro forma websites that cover all such candidates. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  00:24, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I can't find significant coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 14:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm a little on the fence about this one. Aside from the article reading like a blatant game guide (evidenced by much of it being written in the second person), the only Google hits I can find for this online-only game are blogs and YouTube. As for the references listed in the article, the second one is really instructions on how to play the game, while the first one full-on admits that it got most of its info from a blog. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete MMOSite has a long way to go before I'd touch it with my favourite bargepole in terms of RS, the only other source I can see is this on Massively, which is massively trivial. Lacks the depth of reliable secondary coverage needed to demonstrate notability and provide the basis for an article. The rate at which MMOs roll off the production line (and it is just a production line now) has totally exceeded the media's ability to cover them and interest in doing so, and will continue to be largely incompatible with WP. Someoneanother 23:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

↑