Knowledge (XXG)

:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 28 - 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. JForget 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This article has existed as an unreferenced BLP since December 2004 (5 years!) and has never established the notability of the subject. Sources are included in the "External links" section of the article but they are contradictory. The link to allmovie.com establishes that the individual has been professionally active since 1988 while the link to IMDB only establishes activity back to 1994. There was a citation included in the article that identified a "Jeff Glenn Bennett" as having been born in Texas on October 2, 1962 but this did not prove that the person was the same Jeff Bennett who is the subject of the article. While he was born on the same day, according to IMDB, his IMDB profile asserts his birthplace to be California. The article does include an extensive filmography for this individual, based apparently on the IMDB and allmovie links, but having a lot of jobs does not establish notability. While a Google search finds a lot of entries for Jeff Bennetts, the entries are for many different Jeff Bennetts. There is virtually nothing about this individual mentioned anywhere other than at the two external links. There is certainly not the "significant coverage" required by the general notability guideline. AussieLegend (talk) 00:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify a point from above, my thinking is that if you haven't been able to establish clear notability in five long years, then perhaps the subject isn't as notable as some might think. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment Info on cartoons can be really hard to find unless they get insanely popular. This verifies a few Disney roles, and he has had at least one title-character role (namely Johnny Bravo), and voiced primary characters in Gargoyles and Penguins of Madagascar among others. I have a hard time believing that a voice actor with a résumé as prolific as his would turn up no sources, but the fact that there are so many other Jeff Bennetts makes it extremely hard to find anything. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 00:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I certainly see your point but at the moment I can find more information from more reliable sources about me on the net than I can about him and I've never been in a cartoon. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • On the notability issue: the notability guideline for entertainers specifies that an actor may be considered notable if he "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." This is certainly true of Jeff Bennett; it's just a question of finding a source more reliable than IMDb to back it up. —Paul A (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak keep - I can find lots of potential sources, but from what I see, most are blogs, Rotten Tomatoes, or fannish pages. That being said, I think he's notable based on WP:ENTERTAINER. I added soucres. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep and Improve - Jeff Bennett is well known voice over artist and has voiced may famous cartoon characters. I suggest KEEP and Improve. 202.177.148.100 (talk) 05:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • It's been kept for the past five years and still hasn't been improved. Why should there be any reason to expect it will be improved if the result of this AfD is keep? --AussieLegend (talk) 06:59, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
      • This question isn't relevant to the AfD, though. We simply don't delete articles just because they're not sourced - please read WP:NOEFFORT to learn more about wikipedia's deletion policies. You can remove unsourced content, source it, etc, but you don't just delete the article. ErikHaugen (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
        • The vote I responded to was "Keep and improve", so the question about improvement is very relevant to the AfD since improvement is an element of the vote. As for deleting unsourced content, that's essentially deleting most of the article to the point where what's left is not worth keeping, hence the AfD. WP:NOEFFORT is not relevant. The issue is not that the article is being worked on, because it is. The point is that the article is essentially unsourced. It fails WP:V. Even the most basic information about the subject is unverifiable. --AussieLegend (talk) 07:12, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: Bennett provides the voice of a major character on a consistently highly rated animated television show, “The Penguins of Madagascar.” Though it would be nice if there were more of them out there, a few reliable sources for Jeff Bennett information include: Rotten Tomatoes, Yahoo Movies, and TV Guide. Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 08:01, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: See WP:ENT - this is, quite frankly, a no-brainer. He's Johnny Bravo, Kowalski from Penguins, etc. Let me find my trout... or maybe my wp:snowball? ErikHaugen (talk) 01:24, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
    • With reliable sources it might be a no brainer but there just don't seem to be any for the most basic information in the article. We've already had a situation where somebody has found a source for his birthdate but it was a for a Jeff Glen Bennett in Texas, while the only source that actually states the birthplace for the Jeff Bennett who has all these roles (IMDB) says he was born in California. I've tried, unsuccessfully, to find a reliable source that states when his career started but all of the dates I find are contradictory, as I stated in the nomination. So far, I've seen "1984-present" and "1991-present" in the article while actual sources (poor sources unfortunately) state 1988 and 1994. In recent days the 1994 date has come into question. When I first nominated this article, the IMDB entry included a filmography dating back to 1994 but, in the past few days, the entry has been expanded to include roles back to 1988. When the "years active" dates vary so much one has to ask, are people looking at the same Jeff Bennett? Well, we wouldn't know because, as I look at this article, I find myself wondering what ever happened to Knowledge (XXG):Verifiability. People seem happy to assume that all of the information in the article is correct when almost all of it badly fails WP:V which states, quite clearly in the first paragraph, "The threshold for inclusion in Knowledge (XXG) is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Knowledge (XXG) has already been published by a reliable source (see below), not whether editors think it is true." We can't verify the most basic information about the subject and without that we can't verify that all of the roles listed are the same person. The no brainer here seems to be to apply WP:V and delete the article. --AussieLegend (talk) 05:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 03:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:ENT and WP:BIO Alan - talk 23:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Burger World (Beavis and Butt-head) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional place, no sources. Plot summary. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete per WP:OR. StevenMario (talk) 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:BIO un-notable Alan - talk 23:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

WP:BIO not a very notable actress, article may never be mroe than the stub it has been for four years Alan - talk 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Theaters of operation for the War on Terrorism (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete:Besides from providing no more information than the main article, it contains WP:SYN. For instance the North Korea part. No military operations were ever conducted in N.K. under the WoT banner and there are no sources that state there is a connection between N.K. and WoT. That is only an example about the issues of this article. In any case, I don't think there is a reason of having a spin-off article for this purpose. --JokerXtreme (talk) 22:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And thank you for yet another improperly formatted afd. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:10, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Aside from the Korea thing, it looks like its just supposed to be a summary or a list. I wouldn't be opposed to it being deleted as redundant, however, but if you could expand on your other concerns in more detail, that would be helpful. bahamut0013deeds 00:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Spin-off articles are supposed to provide extra information that would make the main article too large. This is not the case. The article is just a copy of a part of a previous version of the "War on Terrorism" article.
    • The extra information included in this article, namely Spain and Mediterranean, Georgia, Saudi Arabia, Thailand, Indonesia and North Korea are not connected with WoT by reliable sources and/or cannot even be considered theaters of operation.
    • But, in any case, even if some/all of those parts are to be kept, they can be incorporated in the main article. --JokerXtreme (talk) 08:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was G3 as hoax, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Possible hoax. I can't find any evidence that Iqrar Shah was a field hockey player. The only external link does not even contain his name on the page. Unreferenced BLP for the last 3 years. Certainly no evidence of Notability, although if evidence could be found that he was an Olympic athlete, then he would meet WP:ATHLETE, and I would withdraw this. Joshua Scott (talk) 22:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was Redirected to Perro de Presa Mallorquin. NAC. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 23:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Appears to be copyvio. Durova 22:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Turns out that there is an existing article at Perro de Presa Mallorquin. --Bejnar (talk) 23:55, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:07, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of works with the equal transit-time fallacy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure this is a suitable topic for a list; as the intro mentions, the equal transit-time fallacy is a common misconception, and turns up in many different sources. I don't think a list of them is particularly notable or useful, and more importantly, it appears to be completely original research. Robofish (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was keep. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular  00:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not meet the notability requirements of WP:BOOK WP:BK. These guidelines require that before a book can be considdered notable, it must meet at least one of the following criteria:

1. The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself...

2. The book has won a major literary award.

3. The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a notable motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement.

4. The book is the subject of instruction at multiple grade schools, high schools, universities or post-graduate programs in any particular country; OR

5. The book's author is so historically significant that any of his or her written works may be considered notable.

The guidelines specifically exclude textbooks from point 4, above - in other words, the book must be the source of study itself and not a study guide. If this is to be included as a stand-alone article, it needs sources to demonstrate notability - in short, other people need to be talking (and writing) about this book. Wikipeterproject (talk) 22:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Does not meet requirements of WP:BOOK —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs) 22:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The book meets notability criteria 4 of WP:Book. William A. Percy and Pedro J. Suarez in their August 1984 article "Today's Western and World Civilization College Texts: A Review" The History Teacher 17(4): pp. 567-590, concede that the histories aimed at college freshmen are rarely reviewed. So they reviewed the top sellers. About the second (1983) edition of The Western Heritage they said (pages 580-581):
In many ways, The Western Heritage (Donald Kagan, Steven Ozment, and Frank M. Turner, 1979, 2nd, 1983, pp. 1,078, Macmillan) is the most curious. Long and difficult from the beginning and expanded by almost 100 pages in the new edition, it might almost be described as reactionary because although among the most recent works, it is the most old-fashioned, still dwelling on Athenian politics and expounding the intricacies of Zwinglian theology. The scholarship is entirely up to date and, as far as intellectual history goes, remarkably error free, though Henry Plantagenet inherited Normandy, not Burgundy (p. 321), and there are other weaknesses in the medieval sections. The prose, readable if complex, is not as clear as Brinton's nor is the narrative as lively. Worse, there is no clear theme about which the oppressive number of seemingly random facts can be coherently grouped, for example, the string of biographies of sixteenth and seventeenth century scientists and philosophers (Chapter Seventeen) from Copernicus to Locke, all duly listed in chronological sequence without any analysis or other rational connection.
The coverage and viewpoint is questionable. By assigning eight of thirty-four chapters to ancient Greece and Rome, the authors almost omit Byzantines and Ottomans. Politically conservative, they treat the nations beyond the West, even Russia and Poland, disdainfully, relegating them to the margin. We advise against adopting for classes with significant minorities or even "ethnics." One wonders how this book sensitizes Wasps to other cultures and the historical experiences of their contemporaries. There is not a single chapter after the brief treatment of early Islam devoted to cultures outside Europe (not even one on its colonies). Some of the errors in economics and other social sciences might be attributable to the author's parroting of other texts.?1 Heritage has too many pictures and the maps, like Brinton's, contain enough places to confound students. Most crucially, only a few of the maps or pictures relate in any but a superficial way to the text they are supposed to illuminate. The chronological aids, sizeable excerpts from sources, and even the perfunctiorily annotated bibliography enhance the text.

The Western Heritage has been around since 1979 and is still used. This book was definitely the subject of instruction at multiple coleges and universities. If you are going to regard a history text as a mere study guide and thus exclude it from criteria (4), it still qualifies under criteria (1), see the footnotes. --Bejnar (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep* Meets criteria 1 in the list given at the begining. (Per Benjar) Also the link at the top should be to the Books Notability page and not to the Books page.Amentet (talk) 02:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Textbooks are really an entirely different world from trade books, and I think that broader evidence of notability than the obligatory reviews in educational journals would be needed to demonstrate that one satisfies WP:BK. (One that would qualify, I think, is H. W. Janson's History of Art, and we don't appear to have an article even about that.) Cases like this seem to be exactly the reason why the exception noted by the nominator appears in the guideline. Deor (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep sources are available. There are relatively few standard textbooks, and the major ones, and the controversial ones, should have articles. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Bejnar provided enough references that it now passes BK criteria 1. NativeForeigner /Contribs 06:32, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject of the article (who apparently was its author) lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources. At least I did not find any. vvv 22:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete as it fails notability criteria. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Delete - per comments above —Preceding unsigned comment added by TitanOne (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Derrick Haruin (credited as such in liner notes for the Hilary Duff albums Dignity and Best of Hilary Duff) is not notable. As the spelling of the article's subject was incorrect, I doubt this was the producer in question who authored this article due to the misspelling, but regardless, he is not notable. –Chase (talk) 20:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Snow and Speedy Keep (nominator !voted keep) —SpacemanSpiff 18:44, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

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

R. N. Shetty a.k.a Rama N. Shetty a businessman from Hubli does not meet WP:BIO, no such thing is evident from the page that this person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific fieldkaeiou (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak keep. some non trivial (like this ) and lots of mentions in English mainstream media. If he gets this many hits in English Gnews it is likely he would have been covered more widely in Kannada and Tulu media.--Sodabottle (talk) 04:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Bangalore University don't confer honorary doctorate to persons who are not notable. Arjun 08:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • comment there was a controversy on this -

controversy --kaeiou (talk) 12:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Not notable by Knowledge (XXG)'s standard. JohnCD (talk) 11:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Does not appear to be a company with any notability beyond the fact that it exists. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 10:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I have two points regarding this contributor. First, has he read WP:Notability before making such a claim? His very sentence indicates that he may have misunderstood the requirements. The article has given no evidence of notability beyond the claim of receiving being a finalist for a small business award. I would argue that this in no way contributes to a company's notability, as almost any small business which is a member of a local trade association can arrange to be presented with nominated for an award. Anecdotally, my parents live in Brisbane and neither have heard of this company. Second, and I make it clear straightaway that this is speculation, but I believe users Johnlegislator, Tanahboys and Clintmurrumbateman are all the same person (Tanahboys may be the original account) as Johnlegislator and Clintmurrumbateman's edits are only on this article. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 05:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I can assure you that Tanahboys is not Johnlegislator or Clintmurrumbateman. I am real person and there is one of me :) - I live in Canberra now, but was from Brisbane. Shy Blinds is quite well known up there and I know they sponsored the Channel 7 Tennis telecast last month (I was there on Holidays and it on the screen every 5 minutes) - they are well established brand and a notable entity. You are welcome to contact me directly on my mobile number/Skype and discuss your concerns if you would like (please post a hotmail/gmail email address and I will send it to you) - I have taken some of the feedback and removed peacock terms and improved references - sorry this is my mistake, I would like to improve this aspect of my wikipedia editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanahboys (talk • contribs) 07:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
We don't need to exchange contact details, thanks. All discussion can and will take place on this page. You've said again that Shy Blinds is notable; now, can you please show that the company is notable according to WP:Notability as this is pretty much the only way that you will be able to support the article's inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). Just saying "This company is notable etc. etc." is not enough. WP:Notability requires verifiable sources. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • KeepComment One of the principles of Knowledge (XXG) is its egalitarian ethos. It seems to me that the issue of notability is quite subjective. Some of us believe that the company is notable and therefore worthy of inclusion and some do not. So, by way of comparison I offer the following articles on Australian companies that are currently featured on Knowledge (XXG) – Retriever Communications, WorleyParsons, Allphones, Cbus & Downer Edi (this is only a small selection – I expect that I could produce many more if required). I believe that these companies are comparable and in fact some of these articles are not referenced at all. I firmly believe that it would not be fair to delete the Shy article without subjecting the same fate to at least the articles I have mentioned and possibly many more. Johnlegislator (talk) 21:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
One last thing. In response to Kittensandrainbows, I too can assure you that I am only one person and not any of the other people you have 'speculated'. The only editing I have done on this page was spelling, grammar and expression. I too am new to the Knowledge (XXG) world but look forward to more opportunities to edit, contribute and champion the underdogs. Johnlegislator (talk) 22:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence or lack of existence of other articles really has no bearing on this article. Those other articles may also fail to meet the inclusion criteria, but haven;t yet been nominated for deletion. I encourage those who are advocating keeping this article to provide evidence of third party coverage in reliable sources. Stating that they think it is notable doesn't wash. Saying other companies have articles so shy blinds should also won't fly. Reliable sources is waht is needed. Also, please only one !vote per customer. If you have more to add, please prefix it with something like comment. -- Whpq (talk) 22:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Further comment What Whpq said. However, if you look at those articles you mentioned, specifically in the References section, you can see a collection of third-party coverage in reliable sources. This is what your article is missing. It's not a question of "improving the article", it's a question of "is your company notable according to WP:Notability. Whether you think Knowledge (XXG) is egalitarian, or whether your company is good, or whatever -- notability is not "quite subjective". There are established guidelines that I kindly suggest you refer to once more. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Postscript: New user 121.127.206.22 has joined the discussion with a "Keep" line. I humbly suggest this user be counted as being one of the three users I mentioned in my entry above, because again, the scope of 121.127.206.22's edits is limited to this article and a related disambiguation page. I guess it's on of the three that was logged out when they posted their latest comment. Kittensandrainbows (talk) 08:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. clearly stronger arguments for deleting the article - not to mention the SPAs JForget 03:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This article cites sources and makes claims to notability, but the sources and the notability claims do not match. I can't find any sources that suggest ths subject is notable. Mkativerata (talk)on wikibreak 21:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Mkativerata (talk)on wikibreak 21:13, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete. Autobiographical spam. StAnselm (talk) 22:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Non notable (clearing civil service exam does not make one notable)--Sodabottle (talk) 04:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Extremely notable - I checked all the references. It says that he is the first deaf person in India to clear the Civil Services Exam. Clearing the Civil Services Exam does indeed make him extremely notable. Just 400 odd candidates make it every year in India and all the highest bureaucratic appointments in India are made through this exam. It is indeed a great achievement and his handicap makes it even greater...Venkireddy (talk) 04:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — Venkireddy (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • There are no reliable sources supporting the claim that he was the first deaf person to pass the exam. This source is not reliable: the subject makes the claim himself and (appropriately) couches it with the adverb "probably". In any case, being a person with a disability who passes an exam (however difficult) is not notable in and of itself. --Mkativerata 05:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - It seems that none of the people who have so far shared their thoughts on this matter know the subject personally. I know the subject personally and am qualified to comment on the facts and circumstances mentioned. His biggest achievement is not clearing the civil services examination. The other achievements that are mentioned in the article make him one of the most notable people featured in Knowledge (XXG). Feel free to make whatever enquiries you wish make in this matter to satisfy yourself about the accuracy of these facts. He has not provided any sources for these notability claims because of the sensitive nature of these matters. These matters have not become public as yet. When they become public knowledge he will cite appropriate sources. In the meantime, you can seek third party confirmation if you so wish. Or else you can even contact him directly through his Facebook or Google profiles. The subject is without doubt or qualification extremely notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sairajkumar (talk • contribs) 07:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC) — Sairajkumar (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete - The article cites an interview with the subject. There is an editorial where he is mentioned. And he is mentioned here. The other sources in the article aren't useful for establishg notability. Taken together, I don't see the sources as being sufficient to establish this person as notable for the purposes of inclusion in Knowledge (XXG). -- Whpq (talk) 17:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested Prod. Fails WP:NOTABILITY, GHits show links to Surge radio, which have a not found error. No GNews or other hits. GregJackP (talk) 21:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:04, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

9,000 miles (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

NN, not released as a single, with no G News hits CTJF83 chat 20:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I thought the two A9 criteria were "or" when they're really "and." DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable wrestler from a small professional wrestling organization. There are a lot of hits for "Johnny Rich", but many don't seem to be connected to Southeast Championship Wrestling as the subject of this article is. see this search for example. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • It's even mentioned in the article that he worked for plenty of other companies, so by your own admission "there are lots of hits for Johnny Rich", in other words your reason for nomination it is invalid.  MPJ -DK  05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • My suggestion to you is to find a reliable source that backs up at least a portion of the material in the article, and add that reference to the article. I'm happy to retract my nomination if you can find sources. Joshua Scott (talk) 07:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 03:00, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Notability not established per WP:ENTERTAINER; sole reference is artist's self-published site, partly under construction, with links to myspace, cafepress, and wikipedia, saying "Jack has his very own wiki :)" Just plain Bill (talk) 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete - Currently fails WP:V, as I can't find any reliable sources for this dog actor, and as a result he also fails WP:N. I Googled several terms, including the stage names mentioned in the article, and nothing other than the WP page, myspace and official site comes up. If someone can find some sources then I may reconsider. I deleted the line from the article that stated "Jack...has goals to appear in many Hollywood films in the future." How does one verify the goals of a dog? Ha! PDCook (talk) 20:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • delete, Needs references --Rirunmot 23:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rirunmot (talk • contribs)
  • Delete per WP:ENTERTAINER and WP:GNG. It's a cute dog, but not notable. Armbrust Contribs 02:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:59, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Article about an unsigned band without multiple, non-trivial independent sources. Most sources in article are from blogs, their own website or podcasts. TM 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was No consensus. My full analysis is at User:Flyguy649/Dwm. -- Flyguy649 17:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Previous AfD was a trainwreck due to offsite activism. Original rationale follows:

Possibly non-notable window manager. No references to independent, third-party sources despite calls for them since November 2009. I can't find anything myself via Google, though perhaps someone with better Google-fu can turn something up. If not, the article clearly fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with this rationale and have restarted the debate to get a clean sheet after the agitation of a now-blocked user who also engaged in substantial off-wiki solicitation. Guy (Help!) 18:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note This AfD was closed as Speedy no consensus for ~4 hours. I am reversing the closure to allow continued discussion. This AfD now closes at 22:45 UTC on March 7, 2010. I will determine consensus then. -- Flyguy649 04:23, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Note) This AfD is being canvassed for via email. See WP:AN/I#New meatpuppet recruitment. —Jeremy 07:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. As I said on the previous discussion, there is simply no evidence that the subject has received significant coverage by reliable secondary sources necessary to satisfy the requirements of WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Pile-On Delete per lack of reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat •

" A bunch of blogs and a Youtube video doesn't make this article pass". Uh, the consideration in question, is whether there are reliable third party sources, these are ample see above. There is no reason whatever to discount blog posts by the way: they must be actually *read* to be discounted as either unreliable or not-third-party. There is no reason to think that a blog post is more unreliable than a New York Times article, the proof must come from internal evidence. A brief study will show that blog posts about dwm almost uniformly exhibit prodigious competence; one might have guessed this a priori, from the nature of dwm. Chief Sequoya

19:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Does that mean, we should also delete the article on the ASIC_programming_language, given that it completely lacks references and is only a stub? That's one of your contributions, and it is far below the influence of dwm - and far below the quality of the dwm article. If you want to be consistent, please clean up in your own garden first and remove all articles you wrote which fail in fullfilling WP:N. Draketo (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I know that, and I refrained from using that argument for a very long time. But seeing someone zealously calling for deletion of an article someone else wrote (Psychonaut started the first deletion discussion) but not applying the same logic to those of his own works which are below the bar he uses for others gets me after some time. I didn't put a deletion mark on his article, but asked him to rethink his own logic. But yes, I grew angry, so I'll stop discussing in here for a while. You know my arguments and I know yours, and we won't see much additional useful discussion. Just remember that you are destroying the reputation of wikipedia among many of those people who made it possible (free software programmers).
Free software programmers don't need magazines to reach people, so they don't send copies of their programs around. They know that he main information channels for free software users are online media anyway. So asking “are you in a dead-tree-magazine” has zero value. Rather ask “what do people in the Gentoo forums discuss about?” But I'm presenting arguments again… Now I stop that till I'm relaxed again (and then some). Bye. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Draketo, the article on ASIC was written long before the policies on notability and reliable sources were formulated. I'd forgotten I'd even written it until I found Soxred93's Tools a few days ago and added their output to my user page. So there's no question of a double standard here. If you feel any of the articles I've started or contributed to fail to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s policies in their present forms, then feel free to edit them, put the appropriate cleanup tags on them, or even nominate them for deletion. As long as you do so in good faith and in accordance with policy (and specifically, not running afoul of WP:POINT), I won't take it personally. Note that any further discussion on such articles, though, should go on their respective talk pages, and not in this deletion discussion. —Psychonaut (talk) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I won't name them as “for deletion”, since I disagree with the notion of overboarding deletion by people who don't know enough of the topic. I don't know legacy programming languages, so I don't think I should be a judge on it's notability, as you shouldn't be a judge on the notability of free wm's. Additionally I think that notability is being misused for deleting perfectly notable pages. And I don't see deleting pages which are useful for users as in any way legitimate (since serverspace and bandwidth are growing ever cheaper). Draketo (talk) 09:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
And threatening me with blocking on my talk page won't change my view. Draketo (talk) 15:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete No fewer than 11 meatpuppets have been identified as either heavily contributing to the article or came to the AfD via canvass, suggesting that this article isn't something we should keep in any event. Blueboy96 21:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • So we should remove articles because they are on a topic many people care about very much? If that alone would be a reason, we should go right away and delete the articles on christianity and the united states. Since that is clearly ridiculous, so is using the same argument for deleting the dwm article. Draketo (talk) 14:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Let me clarify--this article has been so tainted by meatpuppetry in my mind that if it were to be kept, it should be completely rewritten from scratch. It's a credibility issue. Blueboy96 21:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I take a lot of issue with this view. The article hasn't been particularly changed, and I see no changes that violate policy. In fact, the sum of all of the changes since the AfD contains nothing but the addition of AfD notices and a few citation links. Yes, some of those links need to go. But suggesting that a few users acting against policy (probably unknowingly, but whatever) is cause for deletion is not a defensible position. —Roguelazer (talk) 10:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep I think your interpretation of "significant" is a bit excessive. There was, in fact, an (apparently) reliable source presented in the last AfD, although I don't read German, so I can't really verify that. I also stand by my earlier point that if the decision is made to delete this article (and the other half-dozen articles that were listed), there should be an opportunity to, as a community, merge the relevant and sourced content into the Tiling window manager and Dynamic window manager articles. Also, I am bothered that you would take the actions of a few... over-enthusiastic supporters as evidence to delete, User:Blueboy96. That doesn't seem very impartial; in fact, it almost seems vindictive. I'm also a little bothered by the protection on this page. Not very in-keeping with the spirit of things to exclude people... —Roguelazer (talk) 03:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep From the previous discussion: “the freeX article … appears to pass WP:RS”. If noone disagrees to that, we can stop this discussion right now and mark dwm as notable. And yes, I speak German (being from Germany) and freeX 06/2007 (archive) has a whole article on dwm. No side mention or aggregate, but a whole article on dwm only. And as Psychonaut also speaks german (as noted on his userpage) he can easily doublecheck that. Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • One doesn't need to speak German to see that the freeX article was written by one of dwm's developers. This makes it a primary source, not an independent third-party source. This was noted by Rankiri in the previous AfD: "I'm sorry but I don't feel that the article in FreeX can be seen as a sole authoritative source indicative of the subject's notability. For one, I generally disagree that a single inaccessible source can satisfy WP:N. Secondly, and more importantly, the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website and who is also listed as one of the 'people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors'." —Psychonaut (talk) 08:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • You do know that this is almost always the case in free software? The point is that the article was published by an independent source. And in free software people who are knowledgeable on a project often contribute - just like they do in wikipedia. And in academia, by the way. And your link to “active on the website” points to the mailing list archive. Draketo (talk) 09:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And Tobias Walkowiak is listed under “other people” as “Tobias Walkowiak (provided various feedback)”. This doesn't make him a dwm developer (because if it did, the same criterium would make me a developer of Firefox, Mercurial, GNU Hurd, LimeWire, Python, Gentoo Linux, Freenet and many others, which would be far too much honor; and if I were a developer of all these, I'd be an established independent authority and would tell you that dwm is notable). Draketo (talk) 09:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And I also disagree with some things in WP:N (especially the fixation on offline sources which puts free software at a severe disadvantage), but that doesn't change its content, as you clearly stated more than once. Either you change your mind on that (then we can include many sources you discarded and dwm is notable, because the points I disagree with would be null, too) or you stick to it, and dwm is notable because of the freeX article. Draketo (talk) 10:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you buy restaurant food and mail to the developers of Firefox as well? The following message was written by Anselm "garbeam" Garbe, the self-proclaimed founder and developer of a bunch of suckless open source projects, including dwm, stali, wmi and st :
I'm glad to announce the wmii-3 release aka 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne . . . The release name 'Zur Steglitzer Bratpfanne' has been choosen because of the following story. Back in April 'garbeam' received a postal package from Tobias 'aka tube' Walkowiak. This package contained a secret treasure - a double-sized Curry Wurst from Western Berlins 'Steglitzer Bratpfanne' restaurant. 'tube' sent this package with express service and the Curry Wurst was still quite enjoyable after warming it up in 'garbeam's oven.
For me, the conflict of interest is clear. — Rankiri (talk) 13:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I recently sent the author of p2pnet.net 5 Euros for a morning coffee, does that count (and does that make me a writer on p2pnet)? Donations are the only way you can give something back to developers of great free projects who don't happen to live in the same street as you. And a bratwurst is a great idea!
Did the writer of an article about Starcraft(R) pay for the game? OK, chances are he got the game as present so he could review it. Where is “I love this program, here's a Curry Wurst as thank you” a conflict of interest while about every mainstream program review isn't? Rather I see that as showing that Tobias was genuinely exalted by wmii (which by the way isn't dwm).
Do you see a conflict of interest, because someone wants to say thank you to the developers, who spend their free time writing programs which enrich his life and give them to the whole world for free? Draketo (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • If this is a conflict of interest, then everyone who ever payed for a program should be banned from the list of secondary sources. Sadly that would leave about noone who could write anything substantial about any unfree program. Draketo (talk) 14:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • What further evidence can one possibly expect to find through English Google? A revealing sex tape, perhaps? Please, stop. As I said earlier, even if this was an entirely independent, fully accessible article from an unambiguously reputable and trustworthy source, it would still be the bare minimum that would almost definitely have some difficulty establishing notability in most AfD discussions. Here, we're talking about an inaccessible article from an obscure German publication of no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, written by a single author who has an obvious personal connection to the software and its creators. There is just no way it can seen as significant coverage by reliable secondary sources independent of the subject necessary to satisfy WP:N. — Rankiri (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • But that's only because you deny that the reliable information channels of free software users are online, like the dwm article in the Gentoo Wiki. Otherwise you would see the plethora of sources which show the notability of dwm. And you're falsely taking contributing as a personal connection. Draketo (talk) 15:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And because you call the article in the 2006 12 edition of the russian magazine Linux Format shovelware (though the article shows international recognition), which I would disagree with, since it's clearly additional value. This is not “oh, and the DVD has some games”, but a naming of Dwm alongside Gnome and KDE. Sure, it isn't Firefox, but that's the case with KDE, too, and the founder of KDE just got the German „Bundesverdienstkreuz”. DWM is most widely known, because it is recognized as the most minimalistic and elegant window manager. If you ask for a really clean and minimal wm, you get dwm. Draketo (talk) 09:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Once again, the program was merely included on the freeware DVD that came with the magazine. The magazine itself doesn't seem to contain any articles about dwm. — Rankiri (talk) 12:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • No, that's not an article, that's just a list of the stuff on the DVD. The section is called "Desktop". --AVRS (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm quite disturbed seeing another deletion attempt, after the first obviously failed and Psychonaut completely ignored my previous input. And, please, “offsite activism”… you mean it's now wrong that people who are knowlegeable on a subject come to the wikipedia and contribute, when they see that their contribution might be needed, because people who know little about their field of expertise are acting on unfounded preconceptions? Should we now tell experts of quantum physics that we don't look into their inaccessible papers (locked in scientific journals) but rather say “you know, quantum vortices never appeared in an independent newspaper, so who cares, if they revolutionarize our knowledge about the inner nature of our world?” Draketo (talk) 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment To all who don't use X11 (and a free software system) but vote anyway, please let me quote from Knowledge (XXG):Articles_for_deletion#How_to_discuss_an_AfD: “consider not participating if: A nomination involves a topic with which you are unfamiliar.“ Draketo (talk) 08:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Please also keep in mind that the article has substantial translations into 9 languages (some extending it). Draketo (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • That's nice, but irrelevant; other wikis have different inclusion criteria. If any of those translations have sources we haven't considered yet and which meet the English Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for reliable sources establishing notability, please post them here so we can consider them. —Psychonaut (talk) 10:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • Can you read Chinese? If yes, please check the article. If not: welcome to the club :) - I just added one more source from the italian version. Draketo (talk) 12:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • There is no article in Chinese (at least, none which is linked to from the English article). There is a Japanese article, though it cites only primary sources. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
      • And here is one more link we already had in the sources: pc world - looks like this was in the 9 2008 release (from the source link at the top) Draketo (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
        • The Bulgarian magazine article has only three sentences on dwm in a long list of window managers; this probably doesn't count as significant coverage. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
          • What sentences are you talking about? I see five sentences (not including the mention under "awesome"), like in the original. --AVRS (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
            • Translation by Google Translate: dwm is written in C. It resembles Wmii, but is organized differently. There are no tools for setup, the only way to reconfigure something to change the source code and recompile it. This is not as complicated as it seems at first glance, since the source code according to the authors promise will never exceed 2000 lines, and all the configurable options are implemented in the form of macros. According to its authors dwm is suitable for laptops with high resolution display and for widescreen monitors.. — Rankiri (talk) 14:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Sorry, you're right—five sentences, not three. My point about significant coverage still stands, though. —Psychonaut (talk) 14:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete per WP:N, and undue canvassing as I said at the last discussion. ThemFromSpace 08:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, in case it wasn't obvious - I agree with Psychonaut and the analysis of the sources in the last AfD. Guy (Help!) 21:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete or smerge to wmii. Only one source that could be construed as reliable covers it in depth. The PC World Bulgaria article has little coverage; that's enough to add it to (say) wmii as a similar WM that's configured by editing the C source instead of using scripting, but not enough for a separate article in my view. Pcap ping 18:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've separately nominated dmenu, because it's a component of dwm. Prod was removed as controversial. Pcap ping 19:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Pull any sourcing that doesn't meet WP:RS and it doesn't look like any of them are left. Wouldn't pass GNG. Nefariousski (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails WP:N. Nothing more really needed to say.— Dædαlus 20:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Dwm Misterdiscreet (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Second deletion nomination within a week, with no evidence that anything's changed since the last one. Let it sit for a bit instead of essentially edit-warring over deletion. --Delirium (talk) 12:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep: Second deletion nomination within a week! I am not impressed. In any event the arguments given have failed to persuade me that this article should be deleted.
  • Keep. Are you crazy? Perhaps you are not interested in X window managers (and I don't blame you), but to those who are, dwm is an important milestone. AlexTingle (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • It's effectively the same nomination, read the rationale. Funnily enough my colleagues here who use X don't know the product. Maybe that's a side-effect of the observed fact that this "important milestone" lacks reliable non-trivial independent sources. Guy (Help!) 14:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. For all of the better-articulated reasons given above. U (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable. ElBenevolente 14:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is clear to me that the freeX article should not be considered as written by a dwm developer as per Draketo example on how that would make him a developer int he same sense for Firefox, LimeWire, Python etc. As such it
dwn stands on its own merits and is notable. However I would caution others who are in favor of Keeping this article avoid making statements or arguments along the line of "people like us wrote the wikipedia software so you owe us and should therefore keep this in just because" as it doesn't really move the discussion forward.
I would also add that this discussion is about the dwn article and not the state of other users articles (as per Draketo highlighting the ASIC_programming_language written by Psychonaut) --nycmstar (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Sorry about that. As I said I kept myself from that for a long time, but at some point frustration over Psychonauts discussion style took hold. Draketo (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. This article is notable if only as the antecedent to more recent window managers (which is currently referenced). I also see no reason to delete it. CoderGnome (talk) 15:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah. Thanks for sharing. I didn't see any other mentions, but I probably would have seen the cmdline blog eventually. In any case, I just thought it might be worth mentioning as it was the first (and only) instance I saw. Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 17:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't think there was any need for a second nomination for deletion so soon after the first one. Regardless, I believe the sources and mentions provided in the first AfD represent enough general notability that the article is worth keeping. Impi (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article is sourced and is sufficiently notable.HardwareLust (talk) 17:10, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep By the standards of those who vote for deletion of any article about software they haven't heard of and which isn't written up in the New York Times regularly, we should also delete the majority of articles on topics in mathematics and science. I have been greatly distressed by the deliberate wholesale destruction of information on computer software that has been going on in Knowledge (XXG) for several months, to the great discouragement of my interest in editing. Perhaps "the nomination of this article makes me feel like crying" is not on the list of Approved Acronyms for stating one's position, but I feel it expresses things better than a laundry list of references for why DWM is significant. Ben Kidwell (talk) 17:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Enough good reasons above. Shadow demon (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong-Keep Typical wikipedia faggotry Antic-Hay (talk) 17:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There's plenty of sources, the software seems established, it passed a Keep within the last week - this smacks of delete warring to me. Overlord11001001 18:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete with a but - I vote keeping in mind that it would leave precedents for my other future votes. Many articles on softwares not with clear demonstrable significant notability could survive when they should not if this is kept. On the other hand, I realise that other basis should be used to establish notability of free softwares than those usually used. As it is now, the article on tiling window manager could accomodate expention where it mentions Dwm. -RobertMel (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong-Keep This is an important piece of the history of window management. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefastus (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 March 2010 (UTC) — Nefastus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong-Keep - A simple Google search turns up plenty of references to dwm, aside from "a few blogs and a youtube video." Here's one reference: I think the FSF is a credible source, personally. Sprhodes (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This makes me feel like crying too. I used to contribute to the campaigns, but I feel why bother? I've never used dwm, but I know what it is -- and have used, and do use, a replica of a replica of it. (*Its* claim to a wikipedia article is interestingly not under threat; I won't say which replica since presumably that would just threaten it.) But I do use many many things that I learned about by following Knowledge (XXG) links like this one, and it is clear that the Knowledge (XXG) is destroying one of its principal uses and a leading value in destroying this and similar articles.
    • I just noticed that the new issue of Arch Linux Magazine gave dwm's helper program, dmenu, a special award for software of the type they champion ('light and fast'). Of course the people who want to destroy the usefulness of Knowledge (XXG) to human-kind will find some reason not to count the writers for Arch Linux magazine as 'reliable' but here is the text:
      • System Menu: dmenu (Visit Homepage)
      • Short for dynamic menu, dmenu is probably one of the most widely used minimalistic applications for Linux. Originally built for use with the dwm tiling window manager, dmenu has since found use in virtually ever other tiling window manager as well as several floating window managers, most notably Openbox. But dmenu is so much more than a simple, keyboard-driven menu. Users have submitted dozens of scripts for dmenu to allow it to function as a desktop pager, media player frontend, and so much more. Just do a quick search on the Arch forums to see what I mean!
      • To install dmenu, use the `dmenu` package in .

Chief sequoya (talk) 19:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)Chief sequoya (talk) 19:03, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep This article forms another useful node in the ever burgeoning field of open source computing, on the world's premier open source information platform. Google-ability is not a synonym for Notability. Those who are out of their depth in this area of expertise should not be agitating for the removal of an article that has proven, through this as well as the previous deletion debate, its notability and importance. --Infoaddicted (talk) 18:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Previous RfD failed, nothing has changed in the interim. And decrying "off-site" activism is preposterous. Only an American would love a junta so as to badmouth the very concept of democracy. Sbierwagen (talk) 18:58, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment This debate is being canvassed again. . ThemFromSpace 19:04, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Because hiding this discussion from people who are familiar with the topic is OBVIOUSLY a great way to build strong content? You asked for people to find references, this is how you find them. Honestly, I cannot even begin to fathom the mindset that demand secret AfD discussions. Resistor (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Good grief, may god have mercy on our souls, what a useless debate. It's not a corner stone of desktop unix, but it's clearly influential - are we going to delete xmonad next, and then everything that refers to ad nauseum? To people griping about the issue being canvassed - so what? The AfD process is immensely flawed to begin with; you're effectively complaining that you couldn't keep the issue in sufficient obscurity to get what you wanted. hif (talk) 19:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment The notability guidelines are biased against open source software. The reason is very simple, and I believe it is stated clearly in the "nutshell" section of WP:N (bold emphasis mine):

"Knowledge (XXG) covers notable topics - those that are "worthy of notice" and have been "noticed" to a significant degree by the world at large."

The fact is, the world at large does not care about open source software. This suggests to me that the Knowledge (XXG) community must select one of two choices:

  1. Decide that Knowledge (XXG) cares about open source software, even if the world at large does not, amend the notability guidelines to include sources frequently cited by activists, and use them to instantly end future deletion debates.
  2. Decide that Knowledge (XXG) does not care about open source software, unless the world at large cares about it, add a section to the notability guidelines specifically addressing it, and use it to instantly end future deletion debates.

It is my understanding that WP:N exists to prevent articles from growing organically based on opinions and hearsay; the insistence on verifiable, trustworthy and independent sources is intended to keep Knowledge (XXG) itself reliable. That is, if any fact on Knowledge (XXG) can be traced to a published, verifiable resource, every fact on Knowledge (XXG) is itself verifiable.

Open source software is often submitted for deletion from Knowledge (XXG) not because anyone has a vendetta against it, but merely because OSS is rarely discussed in the types of publications that Knowledge (XXG) guidelines consider appropriate for citation. This is unlikely to change in the near future.

For what it's worth, because Knowledge (XXG) is the de facto standard for non-biased information about any arbitrary subject on the web, I think that the notability guidelines should be amended and articles like this should be kept. The internet is a real thing; the fact that you cannot hold a blog article in your hands does not instantly make it less valuable or trustworthy than the same article appearing in a newspaper or magazine. Just like certain publications are baseless tabloids and others are curated by intelligent minds concerned with accuracy, certain websites can unequivocally be held to higher standards of reporting than others; they probably meet higher standards of reporting than published tabloids, too. Max (talk) 21:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with these sentiments, though I think it applies to a lot fields of interest that aren't reported in journalistic/third-party publications. For instance, I've been involved in a few AfDs regarding roleplaying games. Similar problems crop up there, where a topic is broadly recognized as important by members of the RPG community, but no third-party sources exist to establish that, because there are no third party sources at all. I consider this THE major failing of WP:N. Resistor (talk) 21:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
I'm not very active on Knowledge (XXG), so what you are saying about the RPG community is news to me, but I don't find it surprising. (As an avid gamer, I find that it strikes the same chord of indignant nerdrage in me that learning about this article's AfD did.) I'm glad someone else sees this situation as a regrettable consequence of WP:N. For the record, if the community decides to make the second choice (deleting non-"notable" OSS articles), I believe strongly that an OSS-specific Knowledge (XXG) knock off should be launched to act as a safe haven for all such articles. Hell, maybe I'll launch it myself. Max (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment(s) It's a bit tricky to find non-web sources for lots of OSS, simply because a lot of it is web-based; the development model is very similar to wikipedia; only fairly large projects will show up in traditional media. Funnily enough, open source projects are complete open and transparent (For instance, if you don't consider a project's own source code to be a reliable (primary) source, you are simply utterly nuts. :-P ). F/L/OSS projects also tend to be fairly uncontroversial, so it's fairly easy to examine statements about them, and it's unlikely you'll run into NPOV issues. F/L/OSS projects are one of the areas where a wikipedia has an opportunity to shine, but it is currently hampered by fairly unwise interpretations of RS, which go well beyond the intent. Note that there is a political angle to this. Knowledge (XXG) itself is an open project. We should not be biased or afraid to call people out, but fouling our own nest due to misguided actions might not be such a good idea either. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC) Note: can anyone point to a policy that says this page may be semi-protected? The semi-protection policy doesn't mention sock/meat puppeting or canvassing as valid reasons to apply it. <scratches head>
  • Keep The software is well known and notable (certainly as notable as many domain-specific articles on Knowledge (XXG) are), and many of the primary sources are reliable in the technological field. The arguments listed above regarding sparseness of non-web content about OSS have been well-made by a number of users. It'd be interesting to see how guidelines can be established so that articles like this are not badgered. --zootm (talk) 23:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • FYI, there is currently no note of this discussion on the article pages, that should probably be added. Also, I've asked on the Notability page if OSS might need special treatmenmt. cojoco (talk) 04:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep Surveying this AfD, the prior one, and the article, I find this FreeX article and a paragraph in this Bulgarian PC World roundup, which with a dash of leeway due to OSS having few published sources generally, can arguably satisfy the GNG. Everything else seems to be either user-generated or a blog or a primary source, and thus not reliable. --Cybercobra (talk) 05:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
    The freex article seems to be written by someone associated closely with the subject which makes it not independent. If you have evidence to the contrary you might want to add to the discussion about it above.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
      • I hold that the magazine exercised its editorial control by choosing to publish the article (presumably they do some vetting), thus it's sufficiently independent. Anyway, note the "Weak" in my !vote. I also still think the (now reversed) speedy close was absolutely correct. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:50, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
        • Nope, doesn't cut it. Even if some "Vetting" was possible the onus would be on you to demonstrate it exists. We don't presume in deletion debates. You either show evidence of it, or its not true. Even if they did vette, the source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it. It simply doesn't qualify. No attempt at wikilawyering gets around that.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
          • Right, like we regularly go out and prove that the NY Times vetts; 'course not, we presume it based on their reputation. I freely admit I'm cutting some slack and again emphasize to you that my !vote was Weak, which makes your need to repeatedly respond rather puzzling. "source is not independent of the subject regardless who published it" the source is the magazine, which is independent and in any case, how major the writer's role in the software was seems to be unknown; believe me, it can be wikilawyered over; let's not and say we did and just both acknowledge the !vote is Weak; believe me, I'm on your side, this thing just barely meets GNG after we give it pity points for being FLOSS. --Cybercobra (talk) 12:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
            • This site has no reputation like that unless it's been proven. The New York times is a well established institution can the same be said about that site? You're not on my "side" because I don't believe it remotely meets the guidelines. Not even a little bit. Its another random piece of software that has received a couple of trivial mentions in a couple random lists, and has some obviously rabid followers. That doesn't make it notable. Knowledge (XXG) isn't a compendium of all human knowledge, and random software projects that no one has genuinely given significant press to just doesn't cut it. The author of that piece isn't independent of the project and if you acknowledge that, then there isn't the slightest reason for you to want to keep this.--Crossmr (talk) 05:56, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete not a single shred of evidence that there is significant coverage by reliable third party sources. No amount of offwiki canvassing can overrule policy and guidelines.--Crossmr (talk) 06:11, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep/Redirect dwm is about as notable as can be reasonably expected from this kind of program. Also it is the base for several other windowmanagers which by themselves may not reach notability but taken together appear to be significant. Worst case, dwm is mentioned at the list of tiling window managers for X, this could be expanded to include the extra information at dwm with the one or two good citations there and then have dwm redirect there. SQGibbon (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • As notable as can be reasonably expected doens't mean it gets a pass on notability. All subjects are held to that standard. Some are held to higher standards. If its as notable as can be expected that tells us how many article we should have on this subject: 0.--Crossmr (talk) 12:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • You might want to read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Enthusiast online sources are often hobby sites. What techsource article? you haven't linked anything and no one else seems to have linked anything to techsource. If you are talking about this , its covered under trivial coverage and doesn't amount to significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • According to , the site is a self-published blog. Secondly, the text is nearly identical to the translation posted above. Which leads me to believe that both these sources simply quote a single primary source. Google the first sentence and voilà, you just discredited the already thin source from Bulgarian PC World : . — Rankiri (talk) 13:00, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. The trivial 9/2008 mention in Bulgarian PC world (translation) can't be considered WP:RS as it clearly quotes from older revisions of dwm's Knowledge (XXG) article. See or any other 2007-2008 revision for proof. None of the other mentioned references seem to provide significant coverage in reliable independent sources. My earlier recommendation stands unchanged. — Rankiri (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
You mean like the United States Declaration of Independence that was rejected by roughly half of the colonists? ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • There is a reason this RFC has failed to gather any consensus. The author practically proposes to disregard WP:N, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:COI, WP:SPA and WP:CANVASS in all deletion discussions related to FOSS. Well, unless you suggest that we swiftly ratify this double standard absurdity, WP:N is still the core guideline here and the article's claim to notability is based on nothing but two completely discredited sources and a great number of WP:IKNOWIT and WP:OTHERSTUFF votes. — Rankiri (talk) 00:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Which would be what exaclty? The non-independet sources, the trivial sources, or just the personal assurances of random users that this piece of software is really really notable?--Crossmr (talk) 15:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The true core area of Knowledge (XXG), the area in which our coverage has always been strongest--while outside sources have been generally very weak--is articles on this sort of software. we should continue our strengths, which means that we should continue to be flexible about sourcing for it, and use the best of whatever is available. Different subject fields need different treatment. I have long advocated the use of informal sources for subjects where that is the literature. The practical way we make the rules is here, because all notability guidelines admit of exceptions and special cases. There are many areas where we have not gotten formal consensus for a guideline because in practice a few dedicated people can block this, but we use the consensus nonetheless at AfD very consistently--as for schools. Some of the people here have not realized that we are not following rules dictated by some higher authority; rather, we make our own rules as we go along, and interpret them according to the consensus. DGG ( talk ) 16:58, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • And some people here don't realize that encyclopedia articles should not be based on promotional sourcing, transient fame, and mob pressure. Give me one good source and I'll change my opinion faster than you can say flip-flop. — Rankiri (talk) 17:05, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, could you quit harassing everyone who disagrees with you? I believe the references in the article as well as the additional ones mentioned here, when combined, meet the WP:N requirements. You, apparently disagree with that conclusion, and that's your right. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:20, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a deletion discussion. If you don't want your opinion discussed, I suggest you don't take part in it. This hasn't been a vote process for a long time.--Crossmr (talk) 08:05, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • The assertion is that the article's references are all primary, self-published or trivial sources, and this two-week-long discussion filled with dozens of completely prejudiced meatpuppets has so far produced an inconclusive source with an undeniable conflict of interest (FreeX), an ineligible plagiarism (Bulgarian PC World), a bunch of inadmissible blogs (links 7-12), and a single article at linux.com that can finally satisfy WP:RS but has no actual coverage of the discussed subject. That's right, the time has come to invoke WP:IAR. — Rankiri (talk) 01:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep It is plenty notable and there is no reason to delete it. There are plenty other articles on wikipedia that are much less notable, yet they have never been nominated for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nat682 (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I love dwm, but that's entirely irrelevant here. As evidenced by this whole fiasco, it's hard to argue that dwm abides by WP:N; while I would say there is a reasonable amount of mindshare around it, sadly very little of it is actually verifiable. This raises interesting questions to me about the validity of the notability policy, but this is definitely not the forum for discussion of them.--I80and (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. Comparing dwm usage data from Debian's popcon to similar packages proves it's indeed notable. It also outranks numerous unrelated packages of significant notability.
Rank Package
3688 dwm-tools
4857 xmonad
5724 dwm
5744 e17
5898 ratpoison
6450 wmii
6597 ion
8800 matchbox-window-manager
15010 larswm
15153 pwm
—Ive-Ive (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 03:38, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Knowledge (XXG):Arbitration/Requests/Case#Nigam Arora has been filed in this case

—Preceding unsigned comment added by John williams 7 (talk • contribs) 23:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

This is a short and yet meandering piece of uncited original research. It is an opinion piece and an essay. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete WP:OR, etc. Additionally, why does this warrant a separate article? One could argue that the topic is interesting, possibly notable, but it'd have a nice, cozy home at Nuclear power. I am not, however, arguing for merging with that article -- this is purely original research, and if the topic should be covered elsewhere it should be done so in an encyclopedic fashion. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 21:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep* Mark as stub, see if it's worked on. I'm puzzled why an article that's only just been created and which the edits say is just a start is being nominated for deletion so quickly.Amentet (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • I've rewritten the article and am honestly ambivalent about it being deleted. At the very least it needs to be moved to Radiation monitoring in nuclear power plants. With expert input about the actual technology used to monitor radiation would likely make for a decent article. AniMate 05:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Re: comments above from AniMate and Amentet: my opinion on this is that there's no reason, that I can determine, for this to be a wholly separate topic. It doesn't seem so widely notable in a sense that is independent from Nuclear power as to justify it's own article. As such, I do not share the puzzlement over why it was nominated so quickly -- it's not a particularly notable topic. One gets that sense quite plainly even from reading the rewritten version, which features only one sentence that even directly applies to the topic ("Sensors for monitoring radiation levels are kept both inside and outsider the containment building and are connected to control systems that can limit or stop possible radiation leakage."). The remainder of the article is content already well-covered (better-covered, even) in other articles -- and it is still, in its current state, pure WP:OR. We don't have articles about, say, "Temperature monitoring in internal combustion engines" or "Heat shields on U.S. Space Shuttles" do we? What reason is there to include this article in Knowledge (XXG)?

      I'll say this -- I'm not so strongly opposed to this that I think it's an open-and-shut case. The topic is real, and there is writing on the subject. Just seems to me that the coverage is minimal and technical enough that I don't understand why it requires an entire article devoted to it when an individual section in Nuclear power plant would not only suffice, it would be in a location such that the average reader might actually find/read it. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 08:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

      • I'm inclined to agree with you, and have zero problems with this being deleted. I think there's an article here, but this isn't it. Normally I'd say to redirect it, but the title is wrong, it's completely unreferenced, and even after my rewrite, it's poorly written. So delete is fine with me. AniMate 21:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete based on the current version and the version by user:John williams 7. I am sure that this was created as a WP:COATRACK for someone active in the field. A proper article would be technically complex and maybe worthwhile, but this is not it. What it is now is at least neutral but it's just a statement of the obvious. Guy (Help!) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete and possibly userfy. In its current form the article is a pure WP:OR essay and is thus unsuitable for mainspace. There may be a basis for developing an article on this topic. However, in view of the fairly technical nature of the subject, an article like that needs to be first developed in userspace and brought to a semi-reasonable shape there (in terms of structure, content and references) before being posted in mainspace. In the meantime, the topic can be covered in existing articles, like Nuclear safety. Nsk92 (talk) 13:14, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. JForget 02:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

List of sports rivalries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Strong Delete This page is just a jumbled list of various sports "rivalries" with little attempt to discriminate between significance of rivalries, and also has numerous bias within it. I don't feel this is a useful article on Knowledge (XXG) and the information contained in this jumbled list is either already contained elsewhere or could be merged into other articles. The list of rivalries is also largely unreferenced, and much of it appears to be original research. Jonathan McLeod (talk) 18:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • And thanks for formatting it wrong, leaving me as the ONLY PERSON ON THE WHOLE WIKI who can fix broken afds. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, if not clean-up: I am nominating despite my effort in the past to add sources and cleanup only for those that are of high significance, amongst those that will fade to insignificance in a few years time which would had been deleted.

Before nominating, I would like nominators to ask themselves this, how do one define the significiance of rivalries, considering there is no guideline for this. Those who follow sports knows rivalries is a common occurence in sports and they come and goes, if not, what is the real purpose of sports.Donnie Park (talk) 18:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am willing to allow a keep, only if highly significant rivalries are only allow to be included. Donnie Park (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I am dropping my delete vote, considering this list deserve better than the current state that it is in, which I had been doing as much to rectify whenever I have the time before this AfD nom. Donnie Park (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Knowledge (XXG) may not be limited to "high significance", but that would have made this list less indiscriminate considering that rivalries will always occurs in sports, plus rivalries come and go every season and some of these listed there are short term that was only good for one or two season (most of these listed under auto racing for example).
If you can find every sources like you said you can, you can do, though I prefer to include those that is highly significant (those that meets the third reliable source guidelines, plus those that have its own article or a book about the rivalries). For me, I tried and couldn't find some, therefore, apart from some I removed that I considered insignificant, I added add {{fact}} on those without sources with removal in mind later on, hoping that somebody will find sources for it with all others to add in later, this was just before this list was nominated for AfD, but then do I want my life devoted to this site forever as we all got a life. Donnie Park (talk) 23:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep If the lead-in of this list clearly defined what is and what is not a sports rivalry, there would be little discussion about its continued existance. Establish clear, concise inclusion criteria and enforce them by sourcing entries that meet that criteria and eliminating those that don't. In other words, bring the list into compliance with WP:LIST and its a keeper.--Mike Cline (talk) 01:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - It's very clear that notable sports rivalries exist, with the Red Sox – Yankees rivalry springing to mind immediately. The list needs to be cleaned up, and not deleted. One mechanism to clean this up would be to list only rivalries that have articles with the assumptiont hat they are notable, or else would/will get deleted otherwise. - Whpq (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 14:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

After looking over this article, I cannot really find anything that allows this guy to meet WP:CREATIVE. He is mentioned in a few sources, but is not really discussed in great detail. NW (Talk) 17:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep The books listed are on Google Books if NW or ASH or whomever cares to click on the links which highlight subjects name. Furthermore authors are verifiable on Amazon.com. Professor Kondo has her own wikipedia page and is chair at University of So California Asian American Studies. Most books listed are most likely scholarly in nature, not mass market. Additionally, he had 2 news segments based on him as seen in references 13/14. The genesis might come from NW singling out 'gay'--as is the usual thinking is to assume one is straight in our society, it is necessary to point out his sexual orientation. Maybe NW is homophobic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamthemillionth (talk • contribs) 09:21, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Kondo's published by Routledge http://www.amazon.com/About-Face-Performing-Fashion-Theater/dp/0415911419/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608366&sr=8-2 Schlossman's published by Routledge http://www.amazon.com/Actors-Activists-Performance-Politics-Exchange/dp/0815332688/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608456&sr=1-1-spell Burnham's published by New Village Press http://www.amazon.com/Performing-Communities-Grassroots-Ensemble-Theaters/dp/0976605449/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608514&sr=1-1 Wong's published by Rougtledge http://www.amazon.com/Speak-Louder-Asian-Americans-Making/dp/0415970407/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267608598&sr=1-1 Routledge is a global publisher of academic books, journals and online resources in the humanities and social sciences http://www.routledge.com/

Simple searching would have yielded these results which gives rise to the argument that more is afoot than widdling down wikipedia.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tagged as G7 by nominator. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 16:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Duplicate article FotoPhest (talk) 16:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Unfortunately this article is almost completely unreadable, so I've struggled to find out what it's all about. At its heart appears to be the personal recollections of the author ("The reason i wrote this was because I'm related to Handsome Ned") which makes it entirely WP:OR. The subject is Robin Masyk, better known as "Handsome Ned" and his band The Sidewinders. There's a readable biography at which indicates borderline notability. Is there sufficient notability for an article at all? Is anything in this article salvagable? I42 (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a very unorganised article. It should be fixed or nixed. FotoPhest (talk) 16:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. no consensus for deletion - any renaming or merging can be discussed on the talk page JForget 02:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

See discussion at meta here. This page is blatant original research and synthesis. Either wipe and start over or just wipe. First Ghit is this very page. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 15:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep but retitle to Opposition to capitalism. There is no one anticapitalist movement but the other title should fit in okay with WP standards, as they are applied. A more strict enforcement of "no original research" would knock this one and lots of others out, but that is not where the WP community is at right now. Steve Dufour (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Question – The claim made in the nomination is that this list contains Blatant Original Research and Synthesis. The list is about movements or ideologies that are or have significant anti-capitalism elements. Given that, what are the Blatant OR and SYN parts of this article? The major anti-capitalism sources cited address all these list entries in some form. I have not reviewed every fact in the article, but none struck me as unverifiable or made up. Clearly more citations are needed , but that’s article improvement, not a reason for deletion. So restated a bit more succinctly, Where is the Blatant OR in this article?, in other words, what have the editors added to the major sections relative to Anti-Capitalism that is not verifiable in the Anti-Capitalism related references? In other words again, what new conclusions are they drawing, not supported by sources related to the subject. WP:SYN is equally clear about what Synthesis is as a WP policy. Where is the Blatant Synthesis in this article? What conclusions are the editors making from two or more sources that is not supported by a reliable source in its own right?. What position are they advancing that is not supported by sources. Whether or not it is Blatant WP:AGF, there may indeed be OR and SYN in this article, but the nominator has not yet made that case.--Mike Cline (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the nominator's reasoning was that various groups or ideologies that criticize capitalism are put together to create the new "thing": anti-capitalism. This would indeed be considered original research, but in my opinion the answer is to rename not delete the article -- as I said above. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Definite keep - Although it is a somewhat umbrella terminology, rather many wiki pages link to this article and it is perfectly valid; describes the movements that may (or may not) be opposed to capitalism. Since there are pages in wikipedia which seem much more relevant and questionable (for example things as an article for the "name" Jonh Smith, Average Joe, and many others with largely not relevant subjects belonging to popular culture), this should definitively kept. Only an authoritarian capitalist may ask for it's deletion.--190.174.64.243 (talk) 17:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)— 190.174.64.243 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. I see no good reason for changing the name of the page. The term easily passes WP:NEO and isn't likely to cause controversy. See , , , etc. — Rankiri (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • keep nominators should know that 'needs improvement' is not reason for afd. clearly notable.--Buridan (talk) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Ottava Rima said on IRC, "those links are refering to Marxism/Socialism." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge or redirect to Criticisms of capitalism I agree that this may constitute original research, and may not meet notability guidelines. Specifically, the article is stating what is anti-capitalism and what is not. The sources I checked don't use the word "anti-capitalism". To sum up each ideology as anti-capitalist, and not have some other reliable source that specifically says "(ideology here) is an anti-capitalist ideology" is original research. Each of these ideologies have their own page, and are better suited to quick mention on the criticisms of capitalism page. They would still have the original research issue, but at least it would be within a better context for discussion. —MutantPlatypus (talk) 06:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Anti-capitalism is a commonly used concept, is highly notable and needs a Knowledge (XXG) page. If it has problems it should be fixed. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Obvious keep. This article is like most of Knowledge (XXG)'s: it needs help. The solution is to jump in, not to press for deletion. —Anonymous Dissident 12:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    A merge with criticism of capitalism now seems more appropriate to me. Google Books indicates the two terms aren't sufficiently discrete to justify two articles. —Anonymous Dissident 16:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. I think that is preferable to merging with Criticism of capitalism, because, on one hand, many of the points of criticism are shared by different anti-capitalist movements (different, for example, because they favour different alternatives to capitalism, or different strategies), while on the other hand criticism of capitalism need not be related to any kind of movement. I think, though, that the article should be renamed Anti-capitalist movements, corresponding to its actual content. I do not agree this is largely original research; most of it can be appropriately sourced.  --Lambiam 22:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Bad nomination. AFD is not cleanup. Google news search at the top shows the term "Anti-capitalism" used in over two thousand news sources. Dream Focus 06:30, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep but needs work. As per previous contribs, needs cleanup not deletion. The term "anti-capitalism" is in common usage and is without doubt notable enough for a page of its own. But the problem is that the article as it stands is not really about the movement most usages of the term refer to, but rather a list of ideologies that may or may not be described as anti-capitalist. I think most of the current content should be moved to Criticisms of capitalism, replacing or augmenting the section "types of criticism" there (and, of course, edited for better referencing, purging of OR, etc). And a new article needs to be written, that actually gives a concise encyclopedic account of what the common usage actually refers to, as in sources like Anti-Capitalism as an ideology... and as a movement and Rough Guide to the Anti-Capitalist Movement. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Notable subject as per above--Mike Cline (talk) 15:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination withdrawn in light of improvements.. LibStar (talk) 01:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

fails WP:DIPLOMAT. simply being an ambassador does not guarantee notability. no evidence of meeting WP:DIPLOMAT, gnews. LibStar (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. Per nominator: this ambassador appears not appear to satisfy WP:DIPLOMAT. I can find no references to any significant contribution made to events of particular diplomatic importance.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep He was the Ambassador of a nearby country to another. Each country has significant relations with each other and thus he has participated significantly, justifying keeping the article.--TM 20:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
please read WP:DIPLOMAT. where is the third party coverage providing his "significant" work. LibStar (talk) 23:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to San Diego Padres minor league players per agreement from nominator. Rlendog (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:ATHLETE (or at least the common interpretation of it with respect to Minor League baseball players) as low-level Minor League player. Majorclanger (talk) 12:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete !vote changed to delete at 13:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC), see below Neutral at this point, leaning toward Keep though. !vote changed again to merge at 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC), see below I'm no expert on baseball, but as I understand it, Minor League baseball is professional, and this satisfies WP:ATHLETE, which says an athlete is notable if they "have competed at the fully professional level of a sport." If there's some consensus regarding minor league baseball that I'm unaware of, let me know.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 12:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I don't know how much "force" is holds, but Knowledge (XXG):WPBB/N effectively states what seems to be the consensus. Majorclanger (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Okay, that seems fair enough. I've found three stories where he recieves significant coverage (, , ), but I don't feel like all of these are reliable, and there doesn't seem to be enough of them to warrant an article. Section 7 of the Wikiproject Baseball notability guidelines you just posted mentions the possibility of adding a small section in an article along the lines of Minnesota Twins minor league players, but I can't seem to find one for the San Diego Padres. With this in mind, I'm going to change my !vote to Delete, although I would prefer a Merge if an appropriate page can be found.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 13:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Try San Diego Padres minor league players. Spanneraol (talk) 04:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, Thanks! In that case, I'll shift my position again.-- Lear's Fool (talk | contribs) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep. No deletion rationale offered, redirects can be discussed on articles talk page. (non-admin closure) Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 01:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

No significant coverage as an individual found. Redirect to The Party (band) instead. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 11:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Redirect - and also redirect Chase Hampton, Albert Fields, Deedee Magno and Tiffini Hale. All the band members had acting careers - the most significant role might be Deedee Magno's, who played the main role in Miss Saigon a few performances. The next most notable career (Chase Hampton) consists of acting once as a guest actor in a few different TV series. Deedee does not pass multiple of the first WP:ENT criterium (Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions), Chase's roles were not significant so he also fails that. None of them even come close to the other two criteria (cult following or unique contributions). Knowledge (XXG) is not a directory Smocking (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was A7 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 18:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Fantasy 98.6 FM (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

pirate station with no assertion of notability. Ironholds (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Jayjg 03:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable college football player. Fails WP:ATHLETE, not played professionally, no significant 3rd party sources, no awards etc. Tassedethe (talk) 10:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was speedily deleted G12. rʨanaɢ /contribs 07:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

There is little to no information that i can find for Midwest City Hall Arboretum and i believe this does not meat notability. Steam Iron 09:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Unreferenced article, for which no references can be found. Appears to be WP:MADEUP or extremely non-notable. I42 (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete: I cannot find any verifiable source (no mention at all on Google) for this drink. Remove the unverifiable content and you're left with no article. I don't think there's anything left to build on as this seems to be, as the OP said, WP:MADEUP or a very esoteric local drink. avs5221 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: I found zero sources. Joe Chill (talk) 02:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. (NAC) Swarm 08:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The few parts of this which are not WP:OR are either about the game generally or drawn from sources which are not independent, being drawn from press releases. The Rock Band series is notable. The fact you can download songs for it is significant to the Rock Band game. 2009 in sport, yes. 2009 in fashion, perhaps. but 2009 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series? That belongs on a fan-wiki. Previously kept based on WP:ITSUSEFUL and similar arguments and the fact that the list had become unwieldy. The way to deal with unwieldy original research is not to split it out into smaller chunks of original research. Guy (Help!) 09:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are essentially the same thing, so if one is nominated, they all should be. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Complete list of downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2007 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2008 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
2010 in downloadable songs for the Rock Band series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Keep The material is exactly of the nature that belongs on Knowledge (XXG). See discographies for various bands, book lists for various authors, episode lists for various TV shows for examples of other pages listing similar kind of information. There are many thousands of such pages, the claim that this sort of content does not belong on Wikipidea seems to be against established practice. 22:56 28 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.122.160 (talk) — 87.194.122.160 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Delete entirely per nom. ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 13:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Stronb Keep This is not OR. The coverage of what songs come out each week is first announced and then subsequently tracked by Harmonix as a primary source, but will always be covered by multiple sources once they've made that announcement. (See, for example, this list of google news results that are for next week's DLC; yes, not every hit is a reliable source, but there's certainly are more than a few (1UP.com, IGN) that are. This demonstrates that independent sources place value on this information) If it made sense, we could source the entirety of this to those sources, but it doesn't here; all the information can be sourced from one place, and one ref is much more valuable than what would need to be 52 separate ones. --MASEM (t) 14:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 15:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, Knowledge (XXG) is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not everything that is true, or even verifiable, belongs in Knowledge (XXG). As the nominator says, this may belong on a fan wiki, but it doesn't really have a place in an encyclopedia. Nyttend (talk) 15:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Because there is a noted connection between appearing as DLC and the impact on a band or song sales as a result (see, for example, ), in addition to these games having an otherwise larger impact on the music industry, this is not just flat out information for information purposes, but a means to allow those researching music to follow the trends. --MASEM (t) 16:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh for heaven's sake, that sounds appallingly pretentious. People "researching music" wont be reading year-by-year lists of downloadable songs for $RANDOMGAME on Knowledge (XXG). When I research music I read books and reliable online sources. Knowing that a song is available for download for a game tells us precisely nothing about the song or its significance, it just tells us that the song is reasonably popular and the game publishers were able to agree a mutually satisfactory licensing deal. Guy (Help!) 22:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The point is still there: these games have affected the music industry (see Cultural impact of the Guitar Hero series). If this were just a normal video game soundtrack (where the music is simply background noise), that's one thing, but the music game genre has altered music licensing in the last few years, making the inclusion of a song in a game a more significant event than just the signing of a licensing deal. And again, I point out that technically it is possible to make this list all sourced to numerous secondary sources each week, but adding (at minimum) 52 separate sources when one single primary one will do is unnecessary; using Harmonix' own site in this manner is using a reliable, online source. --MASEM (t) 05:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Guy's oversimplified argument could be applied to other instances of music as well. For example, people "researching music" won't be reading lists of songs for $RANDOMMOVIE on Knowledge (XXG). Therefore soundtracks become irrelevant. Also, it seems rather pretentious to assume that those with interest in music wouldn't also be interested in exploring new ways to enjoy that music. -- TRTX 05:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep, the article is no different than any other soundtrack (video game, movie, or otherwise). The division into different years (2007, 2008, 2009, 2010) was done due to the ever expanding size of the article. The article (along with all articles related to the Rock Band soundtrack) were strongly kept in a snowball decision the last time, and the nominator has brought nothing new to the discussion to demonstrate why this AfD should be discussed yet again. I also question why the nominator felt it neccesary to single out 2009 when articles also exist for 2007, 2008, and 2010. Perhaps more familiarity with the history of discussions with these articles would help them understand the reason this article exists. -- TRTX 16:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Additional Note - The nominator's reasons for deletion misrepresent the actual discussion that took place during previous round of AFDs, and seems to be an argument towards a closed AFD as opposed to any new reasoning for why this discussion should be reopened. -- TRTX 16:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes yes, this was no different than the generic "argument" raised in the initial discussions the last time these sets of articles were nominated. But that is the problem with this nomination. There has been no change in the articles format/content/structure/meaning since the lost nom, and the nominator has reopened the discussions with no new arguments (instead only refuteing arguments made in the last discussion which was closed as "Keep" under WP:SNOW. That's the problem with this nom. There is literally nothing new being brought to the table in terms of nomation reasons. Hence why I suggested earlier that the nominator readup on previous AFD discussions before restating the same argument. -- TRTX 21:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
One pile-on of game fans does not make an article encyclopaedic. And I did read the previous debate. It was full of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS and similar arguments (just as this is).. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You again make the mistake of grouping the arguments of all those in favor with those who made the above arguments. I could do the same and oversimplfy the opposing viewpoint as being WP:IDONTLIKEIT and especially in this case WP:KEEPLISTING since nothing new has been brought to the discussion in favor of deletion. -- TRTX 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep While lists may not be in accordance with an encyclopedia, Knowledge (XXG) transcends that. This list of Complete Songs is no different than Complete Episode listings for most television shows with Knowledge (XXG) Pages. In addition, I use this page every week to review songs I am considering purchasing, and new songs released on a weekly basis. Probably my most frequently visited Knowledge (XXG) page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.175.196 (talk) 20:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC) — 67.163.175.196 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep Nom's rationale is flawed. None of the information is original research, having come from multiple sources. The argument that it follows primary sources only is irrelevant as when up-coming tracks are previewed in other sources they are used so long as deemed notable. This listing is no different than a listing of television episodes. These articles support the base article, and provide the reader with the information they desire as an expansion to the parent article. Nominator also paints a false picture regarding the consensus of the previous set of AfDs. --Teancum (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Teancum's and TRTX's arguments is best described why. Absolutely 0% of this information is original research considering it is kept in sync with the actual Rock Band music store.--F-22 Raptör 23:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Although there are many places to find this information, the split lists of all years contributes to easier access to finding the songs that are already available for the game and for the songs in the upcoming week. --Nascarfan1964 (talk) 0:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Many people (including myself) use this particular entry to make informed decisions on what songs to purchase. Rock Band is not a "random" video game. It is one of the most important music games of the era and has been very influential. There are so many more lists that are less informative and important than this one. Just because it doesn't affect you any, doesn't mean it should be deleted. It is not original research and is very organized and cited. --LtFrost 11:46, Feb 28 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by LtFrost (talk • contribs) — LtFrost (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Strong Keep Exactly; if this list is deleted how is anyone going to know what songs there are for download? It takes a heck of a lot longer to sift through the list within the game than on here; in the game there is no "Find" feature where you can just type in the name of your favorite band and see all of the songs by them. Not to mention it takes a lot longer to load most videogames than it does to load Knowledge (XXG)...Black Yoshi (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete as an indiscriminate collection of non-notable information. Fails our standards in pretty much every way possible, in my opinion. — Huntster (t @ c) 08:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep per Masem. The list demonstrates adequate sourcing and is well-organized and clear about its inclusion criteria. Incidentally, we are doing a great job covering this subject area - this is probably the best page of its type on the internet. While we can agree or disagree on whether this list meets various deletion criteria, there's no doubt that our readers, who care nothing for our notability guidelines, will be ill-served by this deletion. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:18, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep The most compelling argument in the nominator's opening statement is that the title sucks, which I'll whole-heartedly agree with. However, I fail to see how the list counts as original research, given that everything is sourced... EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I'm sorry, when did soundtracks become OR? This list, along with the other Rock Band and Guitar Hero lists (many of which have been upgraded to Featured List status) is basically a soundtrack for what songs are available to download, along with vital information such as artist, genre, how the song is available, and when it became available. By nominating this list for deletion, you're basically saying all the peer reviews all the aforementioned lists went through were faulty and useless. Crazydiamond1to9 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. If Rock Band had, say, fifteen playable tracks, it would be very reasonable to have a list of them in the main encyclopedia article. The fact that it has however-many-hundred doesn't change that, it simply means that the list needs splitting out and organising, which is what these pages achieve. This is a perfect example of ancillary information that is encyclopedic, but would not generally appear in a paper encyclopedia due to lack of space. With no such constraint, and given that this information is indeed all sourced, I view this as a perfectly valid set of list articles. ~ mazca 13:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. What a silly idea. Why don't we create an artcile List of Rock Band underwear, available on eBay? DVdm (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong delete per WP:SALAT, WP:NOTCATALOG. Too specific for a general encyclopedia. These lists are entirely reproduced from http://www.rockband.com/music/songs, which will always be more WP:USEFUL than the corresponding Knowledge (XXG) lists (hint: it's sortable by release date). That raises some WP:COPYVIO issues as well. It's also a case of WP:ADVERT for a company performed by undiscerning fanboys; see WP:NOPRICES. Pcap ping 17:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • I don't think there's a copyvio here. These lists have been developed over time as songs are announced for availability; at worst we're talking a database (yes, I know that opens other questions) which in general cannot be copyrighted. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Excellent demonstration of your ability to throw policy at the wall. But let's go through these one at a time shall we? And actually discuss why you feel these merit application.
WP:SALAT - "Stand-alone lists 'are Knowledge (XXG) articles; thus, they are equally subject to Knowledge (XXG)'s content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view." - Since this is not a policy regarding what can/cannot belong in lists, let's look at the lead. Have you argued verifibility? No, there's plenty of reliable third party sources. Have you argued original research? No, there's no synthesis here...no more than any other article that combines several sources into a list. Have you argued neutrality? Well, you accuse those who have created the list of doing so simply as advertising, which only accomplishes a breach in the idea of assuming good faith.
WP:NOTCATALOG - You appear to only be applying this guideline since there the article includes prices. So in that regard, it would appear you would have no issue if the prices are removed. That is something that could be discussed within the article talk page...not something that an AFD would hae to force out.
WP:USEFUL - You appear to use this link only to pad your argument. Useful/not useful is a matter of opinion, and is typically not "useful" in an AFD discussion. Yes, there will be sources more useful than the article...but isn't that because the nature of WP is to be a summation of a topic using multiple fleshed out sources? Yep, there's another place on the web with this list. Guess what, there's also places on the web that have soundtrack listings, movie summaries, cast lists, and sports stats. Yet all of those things are summarized and maintained here on WP are they not?
WP:COPYVIO - How is this a copyright violation? It's a soundtrack. There's nothing more you can do with a soundtrack than list the songs and artists. Where you could possibly have concern is in the information surrounding the list itself, but since that is pulled from sources and inserted where appropriate, there is no more issue with quotes/references than any other article.
WP:ADVERT - Another carelessly flung out accusation. The language is "Articles considered advertisements include those that are solicitations for a business, product or service, or are public relations pieces designed to promote a company or individual. Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website." Since the only evidence of any sort of "sales" that you seem to think exists is the pricing information, than a "Strong Delete" seems like a rather harsh resoution when the policy you toss out explicity states: "When an article on an otherwise encyclopedic topic has the tone of an advertisement, the article can often be salvaged by rewriting it in a neutral point of view."
So again you seem to be going for the easiest solution vs. actually discussing any potential improvements. -- TRTX 18:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment and inquiry - To those above with deletes, I would like to point out the fact that it has been established that the lists of songs as shipped with these games are considered appropriate (see eg List of songs in Guitar Hero, List of songs in Rock Band.) It is also considered appropriate that these include the list of songs added through downloadable content (eg List of songs in Guitar Hero World Tour, List of songs in The Beatles: Rock Band). By extension, there seems to be justification for these lists, but to some point, I can understand the concern about indiscriminate that has been raised. It is important to note that the Rock Band series is getting another outlet for songs, through the Rock Band Network which is all user-generated content. Those editors involved in these are still debating whether to including a list of such because there is no necessary quality control by a single source (it's all peer-review) - in other words, in this particular situation, that's edging on indiscriminate. But here, on these specific lists, these are songs that Harmonix has tracked and placed into the series, each week receiving third-party coverage by gaming sources of their availability. It is only the fact that Harmonix has remained proficient in this with well over 800 songs between all the lists over the last several years, as opposed, say, how Guitar Hero has released multiple games with multiple on-disk songs. The point that I ask for clarification here is, given that some lists of songs have been determined to be appropriate, why are people drawing the line here? That may help to understand what those seeking deletion would rather see. --MASEM (t) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. It's not that far-fetched of a compilation of information. The Guitar Hero soundtrack lists are almost all FL status, and although I know that just because they're FL doesn't mean this one should be, at the same time it's useful information that is not difficult to piece together into one place. To those who say it's ADVERT or NOPRICES, we used to include difficulty levels for each track; that wasn't needed. I don't see why this is an issue for some people. Anthony (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Or, rather, go through and delete every band's discography, every writer's bibliography, etc. This is useful information, I reference this page very often. Daytman (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep As above, I would often use this page as reference as I find it is more up to date and holds more information than any fan site ever does or ever could. I would usually visit this page at least once a week due to the reasons I have already stated. I feel that removing this page will inconvenience many people. 92.21.246.212 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete The purpose of this list seems to be little more than a consumer guide listing, which is not the purpose of Knowledge (XXG). If you want to know what songs you can buy for Rock band, go somewhere else. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:15, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
But what if all the rest of the Internet is destroyed and Knowledge (XXG) is the only place left? Then this information will be lost forever. Please see: Library of Alexandria. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Hmmm. After reading Library of Alexandria I see that its story is not so simple as I had thought. But still it is a good example of the need to protect information in multiple storage places. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
From that article: "By decree of Ptolemy III of Egypt, all visitors to the city were required to surrender all books and scrolls, as well as any form of written media in any language in their possession which, according to Galen, were listed under the heading "books of the ships". Official scribes then swiftly copied these writings, some copies proving so precise that the originals were put into the library, and the copies delivered to the unsuspecting owners." Clearly it foreshadowed Knowledge (XXG). Steve Dufour (talk) 16:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Speedy keep as an earlier discussion closed mere months ago by WP:SNOW, which we have yet again this time around. Anytime at least a dozen editors in good standing determine a subject is notable, the subject does not become less notable. Renominations are not intended for articles that were previously kept, only those that were previously deleted. For example, if we had a deletion discussion back in 1971 for Avatar (2009 film) that closed as delete as a hoax or something, well, okay that would be a reasonable close, but due to what happened in the past year, no serious editor would not contest that article despite the earlier discussion. By contrast, 41 years from now, no serious editor will say we should delete the article that we thought should be kept now, because it has somehow become less notable. Notability, as subjective and anti-encyclopedic of a concept as it is, only increases. Indeed, if anything, the songs of Rock Band have only become more important since the previous discussion. In any event, most of this article is unoriginal research as it is and can be sourced through reliable secondary sources including Kotaku, which frequently features articles commenting on the weekly downloadable content, as well as magazine articles: “Rock Band’s Five Most Unexpectedly Rockin’ Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band’s Five Most Disappointingly Boring Downloadable Song,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine (January 2009): 58; “Rock Band DLC,” PlayStation: The Official Magazine 024 (October 2009): 55; etc. That which is verified in multiple reliable sources in separate articles that not only list, but comment on the choice of specific songs, focusing on the songs specifically rather than on the game as a whole, meets any common sense or valid interpretation of Knowledge (XXG)'s ever changing policies and guidelines, which is why no serious editor will post another bolded "delete" in this discussion after my post. This article belongs on Knowledge (XXG). The only delete votes we are seeing are nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT or "I don't know about it" or "It's just not important me", none of which are legitimate reasons for deletion, because there are no legitimate reasons. This discriminate article that lists songs playable in a major game series on multiple systems that are verified and anaylzed in numerous reliable secondary sources on the web and in print is unquestionably wikipedic and passes our standards in pretty much every way possible. As usual in a list discussion we such silly apples and oranges comparisons as songs (the major musical element of a game) compared with a hypothetical "List of Rock Band underwear, available on eBay" that not only would no one seriously suggest be created in the first place, but that no one would suggest because unlike this article, it is not something discussed in dozens of reliable secondary sources. Or we wind up with the usually incivility by someone with neither knowledge nor interest in this topic dismissing others as mere "fanboys". This article passes WP:SALAT and is consistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s First pillar, i.e. we are not just a general encyclopedia, but also an almanac, specialized encyclopedia, and gazetteer. The purpose of this list is to cover an influential element of a major series that has relevance to not just the video game industry, but also the music industry. Once someone says things like "go somewhere else," well, we can go somewhere else for an article on Napoleon as well, but that does not mean we should not also cover it here. Sincerely, --A Nobody 15:48, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. The OR argument is confusing, as everything on these pages is readily sourced. The only other real delete argument here is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, as people somehow seem to think that video game information isn't "real-world" enough to be in an encyclopedia. Oren0 (talk) 07:42, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. This is a regularly updated soundtrack for a music video game. The fact that some people use it to inform their purchases is irrelevant. As long as there is an entry for the Rock Band series, there should be a list of songs associated with it. Jollyv (talk) 06:42, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep. Why was this even put up for deletion? This is an incredibly well kept and updated article. It is preposterous to even put it up for debate for deletion. It stays. I regularly check this article for the latest DLC and it has been the most convenient source for DLC for years. Doshindude (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep Deleting this article is absolutely erroneous. I watch this page like a hawk, as do many other Rock Band owners. It is exactly the kind of page that makes Knowledge (XXG) such a great source of information. I cannot believe this is even being considered for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.249.55 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • VERY STRONG KEEP I am also a frequent user of this information and am glad that it has been assembled for me in such an easy to find fation. I appreciate the work of the people who keep this list up to date and would not want to see it removed.--99.240.225.50 (talk) 22:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep I use this page quite frequently to review songs to purchase as most people have mentioned. It is a clean list which follows the same collective information such as an episode list. Lists are okay on Knowledge (XXG), this one should be no different. -- Tommy Boy ♪ ♪ 03:21, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Very Strong Keep This page absolutely belongs on wiki. This list is useful and accurate. There are many lists on wiki that should be deleted before this. Merging the list maybe. Anyone who thinks wiki is a real encyclopedia is insane, most of the articles on here would not be in an encyclopedia. jvfulcher (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

No indication of notability. only references are to the site hosting the podcast. Google shows no reliable sources. Contested prod. noq (talk) 08:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable musical group. Clubmarx (talk) 05:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

(I'm assuming there's no speedy-option for this since it's a sort of "publication") Not notable. All I could find was the facebook-page and a blog in Houston... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Foods/Products that contain High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFCS) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Open-ended, unsourced list. Some entries are problematic—for example, not all varieties of Coke or Pepsi products contain HFCS. The bigger problem is that there is no reliable source for the products being on the list. Too much original research, not enough verifiability, and an ill-defined large population make this an inappropriate list. —C.Fred (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • please don't delete the page. I have retained many points and they can be edited and sources added. I am working on the page as we speak. Please give this time for me to make the page Wiki Appropriate. There is over 900 comments in my source citation that are specific to this. Anybody can verify the ingredients at the store. These are factual. Thanks
Not even all products under the same brand name within the same country contain HFCS. Compare Dr Pepper from most US bottling plants against the formula from Dublin, Texas, or mainline Coca-Cola against the production runs that are kosher for Passover. —C.Fred (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Already speedied under A7 (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Fails WP:MUSIC notability guidelines Nick—/Contribs 04:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Superman (film series). Only two editors wanted the info to disappear completely, but there was no support for retaining a free-standing article EdJohnston (talk) 15:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article reads as a semi-random collection of trivia that was culled from the IMBD. And that is without the overly detailed notes/references. There is also very, very limited notability to versions of films edited for TV. It is a standard practice to get odd length films to fit into standard TV programming slots. It may be of value in the article on the subject movie if there is a notable consequence to the edit. That does not justify compiling all of the minor edits across a grouping of films. J Greb (talk) 03:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable demo by possibly notable band. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 03:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was redirect to Men in Black (film). Any editor is free to merge pertinent material. Non-admin closure. Jujutacular  04:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Not notable enough to have their own page. Freikorp (talk) 02:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-notable tournament made up one day. No references. Clubmarx (talk) 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:43, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Products Manufactured in Australia and New Zealand (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Seems like an essay trying to make a point. Would need to be renamed probably, is half list half essay. NativeForeigner /Contribs 23:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Point taken. Naturally, I vote for keep. I've removed the list, toned down the language (e.g. removed "ever-decreasing" and the reference to the impact of the decline of manufacturing on the balance of payments), and added a section on another major Australian industry, the chemical industry. What remains is a brief, (I believe) impartial description of two major industries, some statistics about the overall change in size of the industry, and links to three relevant search engines.
I believe it now fits within the scope of Knowledge (XXG), as described by the Knowledge (XXG):Five pillars.
    • It covers an important encyclopaedic topic.
    • It is mostly objective satistics.
    • The information is verifiable; it has 8 references for a 1-page article that is mostly headings!
The page is clearly still a work-in-progress. However, I argue it is a more important topic, and a more finished article than many. You're welcome to put a "stub" tag on, if you think it is too unfinished. When I clicked on "random article" 8 times, half of the results were stubs (Santa Marinha, Vila Nova de Gaia, Mirko Tomassoni, Mirko Tomassoni, Red Rock Cider), on topics which are less important than the manufacturing industry of an industrialised G20 nation.
LachlanA (talk) 02:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:38, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, seems to be written as an essay. The topic is "products manufactured in Australia and New Zealand", but almost the entire text talks about the history and financial situation of Australia and New Zealand, not products. JIP | Talk 07:14, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 02:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Manufacturing in Aussie and NZ is linked by virtue of geography and the Closer Economic Relations agreement but this is not a justifiction for the article. Manufacturing in Australia and Manufacturing in New Zealand are approp articles but an article covering both together is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Benjar: Please read beyond the first line of each of the pages referred to. The figure of 40% for opiate production was from the sentence "Tasmania supplies some 40 percent of world demand for raw narcotics for the pharmaceuticals industry", rather than the first line of the reference. The substantial chemical industry is not merely the two ageing petrochemical complexes; the reference mentions plants in Victoria (Geelong as well as Altona), NSW, Queensland and WA. You're right that this article doesn't have much content -- then label it a stub (like 50% of Knowledge (XXG) articles). If it has too much content to be a stub, then leave it as an article. Anyway, I give up...LachlanA (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Bio of a member of the band The Foxes but having no notability outside of it. WP:MUSICBIO #6 requires that band members be associated with two separately notable bands for independent articles. Probable WP:COI; the image on the page is a promotional photograph uploaded by the creator. I42 (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Keep As noted in WP:MUSIC "A musician or ensemble (note that this includes a band, singer, rapper, orchestra, DJ, musical theatre group, etc.) may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria:"

IT INCLUDES:

"1. Has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable.

This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries."

"12. Has been the subject of a half-hour or longer broadcast across a national radio or TV network."

"Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases. Members of two notable bands are generally notable enough for their own article." He has several INDEPENDENT RELEASES. If you look at the sources I have included, you will see that they are INDEPENDENT and SECONDARY; the image is not promotional - IT IS A FREE IMAGE A nothing more and nothing less thank you very much. Also, if you keep saying that I am related to them, adding tags to all my articles, then I am going to report you - you have no evidence whatsoever! So what I uploaded the photo!? Blaze42 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:37, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) CTJF83 chat 10:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Doesn't indicate importance and too short yutsi (talk) 18:51, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Note It neither needs to indicate importance, nor be of a certain length to escape deletion.--Pontificalibus (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jayjg 03:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

As per Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Durham Saints and Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion/Edinburgh Predators, a British university American football team with little or no claim of notability Pfainuk talk 17:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, university sports teams in the UK simply aren't notable. I work on a university campus and went past the sports ground the other day while one of our teams was playing a match against another university. I'd estimate there were at most 15 spectators watching, that gives an idea of the level of interest there is in university sport in the UK..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Delete because fals to meet WP:BIO standards. There is no assertion of notability in the lead. One book doesn't provide notability. The three other citations are to two news releases - one from his own newspaper, and the other from the school where he received his degree. The last citation is to the coverage of his wedding to another reporter, coverage in the newspaper where she works. It does not appear that he has won any awards, or has otherwise distinguished himself. Bejnar (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:35, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to My Chemical Romance. No info needs merging, since this article has no reliable sources, and a short blurb about this DVD is already included in My Chemical Romance EdJohnston (talk) 15:09, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Things That Make You Go MMM! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Ad. I'm with Coco (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete According to user comments on cduniverse.com, it is unauthorized, contains none of the band's music, and has no interviews with the band members. So why is it on here? Any fan media unauthorized by a band does not get an article here. Nobody would likely type in this term for MCR-related items. Nate • (chatter) 01:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with My Chemical Romance. I don't see why it's unreasonable for people to be searching this term. Jujutacular  03:53, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
    • For one thing, the C+C Music Factory song "Things That Make You Go Hmmm..." is more searched for than this term (and if anything this should be a redirect there, but the all-caps "MMM" and exclamation mark would never be used in a search). The second thing is that this only gets 161 G-hits altogether (all for this, nothing that the band made themselves) and that again, this is a DVD not at all promoted by the band and judging from customer reviews, was only put out into the marketplace to make a buck for somebody else and was clearly made to confuse fans into thinking this was sold by the band. FInally, the article has only one article linked to it, the MCR article, making it pretty much an orphan in all but templating. We should not be creating articles for promotional items not promoted or sold by the band themselves, or that the fanbase has rejected. Also, that this has gotten under the radar for four years is no excuse either. It should have been speedied G11'ed quite a long time ago. Nate • (chatter) 04:24, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with article about band. Film appears not to have notability on its own. Jim Heaphy (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Subject has no notability on its own, and would be nothing more than trivia if merged into the bands article. Click23 (talk) 13:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Restart Restarting the debate due to trainwreck. Guy (Help!) 18:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Possibly non-notable window manager. No references to independent, third-party sources despite calls for them since November 2009. I can't find anything myself via Google, though perhaps someone with better Google-fu can turn something up. If not, the article clearly fails Knowledge (XXG):Notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete. In order to satisfy Knowledge (XXG)'s inclusion criteria for standalone articles, the subject needs to receive significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Articles for which thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed should be removed in accordance with Knowledge (XXG)'s deletion policy. Zero sources = no article. It's that simple. — Rankiri (talk) 03:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • And please say what does Knowledge (XXG) do with people like you that doesn't read the arguments and ignores proofs and links? Notability of free software obviously has no support in glossy paper, it is the subject of sysadmin blogs and threads in Linux communities all over the world only. If you don't understand this fact you should logout right now and go teach yourself. Gkrellm (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Please note that this is Open Source software. It's free as in "freedom" and is also free as in "beer". You will never ever get as much coverage in glossy prints "reliable secondary sources" as for prorietary software or software sponsored by big companies. It's a good page, written in a good style, and you can hardly say it's marketing or whatever. Leave it alone, please. Knowledge (XXG) has greater places where you can show off your ardour. 0xd34df00d (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I have started a discussion whether Linux.org.ru qualifies as a WP:RS at Knowledge (XXG):RS/N#Linux.org.ru. Pcap ping 06:39, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Meatpuppetry Notice. From http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation): Article about dwm in wikipedia set for removal . . . Proposed Strategy for Action: After registration MUST write at least a couple of lines on his personal profile. To do this, click on the name of its Nick at upper right. It is necessary that nickname in the discussion are not highlighted in red, a sign of very fresh registrant. This adds weight to arguments.
If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 13:38, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 09:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
So you didn't present any proof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:33, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, see WP:MEAT. Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:20, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not? FSF.org is site of most well known free software advocate, they maintain a list of all notable free sofware (it's usually outdate, but it doesn't make sense in this case). Also consider other links I added to article, there is several 3rd party reviews. --Necrosporus (talk) 21:48, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This argument holds for every newspaper deciding on which article to write, too. The FSF is a clear authority in free software - maybe the authority, along with the Linux foundation. Yet here you are right in that we can't conclude notibility from it, since this is simply a list of programs. But we don't need to find something which fullfills the notibility criterium, since that's already fullfilled by the freeX article. Draketo (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is an all-inclusive directory that doesn't offer any analysis for the listed software. If you compare the text of the entry with the text on the official website, http://dwm.suckless.org/ , you'll see that they are nearly identical. They probably were identical at the time the entry was made. — Rankiri (talk) 14:59, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep, definitely. This window manager is included in major Linux distributions. There are how-tos in official wikis about installing, configuring and using: at Gentoo wiki and at Arch, just to name a few. For any Linux user it's obvious that these two facts are enough to prove notability of any software package. People won't spend a lot of time to write install guides for unnotable software, you know. 0xd34df00d (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC) — 0xd34df00d (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Neutral. I'm the inventor of dwm and was pointed to this discussion. I never contributed to Knowledge (XXG) so far or to this article, it has been done by the community. In my opinion dwm is quite a significant open source window manager that influenced many other projects, just to list a few: awesome (it was initially a dwm fork), i3, xmonad, dvtm. If I search for "dwm" in Google it is the first hit, you'll get more results from different sources when searching for "dwm window manager" or "dynamic window manager". If you search for "dynamic window manager blog" you'll find various second sources and blog posts about dwm. There has also been German print media coverage of dwm, particularly both, the freeX 06/2007 freeX and the German Linux Magazin Linux User Magazin had an article in autumn 2007 about dwm and another article in 12/2008 about awesome that also referred to dwm . dwm's popularity (despite your impression) is mainly based on its simplicity and potentially because it is one of the simplest and cleanest X window manager implementations that exist. Furthermore I'd like to point out that dwm is open source and one of the suckless.org open source projects, others are wmi, wmii, dmenu, libixp, st, stali, sic, slock, etc. - despite your impression the community is quite large and consists mainly of experienced Unix/Linux users. dwm is also very popular in the Gentoo and Arch Linux community and has active contributors there (like in the Gentoo and Arch Wikis). Anselmgarbe (talk) 08:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Anselmgarbe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep While it is true that the article fails a literal reading of the notability criteria, for a program that is only 2000 SLOC, it has inspired a number of other window managers - as the current article points out. While there hasn't been any mainstream media coverage, surely in the software world the amount of code directly derived from (forked) or inspired by the original program is as significant a currency of notability as column inches in technical journals or other independent publications? And as the program's author points out, there is a large and active userbase in the free software community that supports this project. Jasonwryan (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Jasonwryan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep According to debian statistics dwm is installed on about 1% of the GNU/Linux systems which run debian - in Gentoo Linux and Arch the percentage should be far higher. Draketo (talk) 09:15, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This is a reason to keep it, because it shows its impact. dwm is used (as basis for work) by more people than many games which are in WP (and these are used only as part time activity). Also it's a very useful fallback for people who are rebuilding their system; for example I currently write this in firefox running on dwm, because my KDE didn't yet finish building. Debian statistics are about the closest you get to all time charts in free software. Draketo (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Do you use a GNU/Linux system? If yes: Where do you get your trustworthy information? If no: How can you judge what is a source for GNU/Linux users? I don't read any magazines on GNU/Linux, so if you only take print sources, all my information on free software is not noteworthy.Draketo (talk) 11:16, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • You are not the first person who see the incompetence of some editors and problems in WP:N concerning FOSS. Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Knowledge (XXG) and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. I think that activists for deletion should use their free time and efforts reading Notability of free open source software instead of destroying articles about such a popular=notable enthusiastic project. Mclaudt (talk) 11:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I just read that, and I think it misses an important point: In free software projects, most people will rather go to that project and add information there than write something in a magazine. So they don't create independent sources, because these would be less useful. And then they'll just give their friends a link and ask them to review it. Which incidentally is just the way how the wikipedia works. Knowledge (XXG) introduced the way of working to the larger public, and now the notability criteria punish those who follow that lead. Draketo (talk) 12:14, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I just read some other comments again, and from the answers these got it looks like any free software article which isn't among the top 100 programs will disappear. Please compare this to articles on quantum vortices, which are very interesting for me, but are quite uninteresting for the world at large. If this trend continues, wp will be useless for me in a few years, and with that it throws away it's main strength: user contribution. So please ask yourself: Does the notability criterium really say “this must go, no matter how much influence it had on the field”? Every program which got written in response to dwm is effectively a nontrivial and independent coverage. A program is text, much text, and that text is being served to damn many people; a free software programmer reaches more people than most newspapers. If you don't believe that, please go, learn programming and then read the sourcecode. Or would you reject an independent source, just because you don't understand the language? Draketo (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm not going to put a vote here, since I think I said my piece in the awesome AfD. I still do not agree with the essays that Psychonaut has linked (and, in fact, am rather unhappy with the proliferation of WP essay links and their being taken as gospel, but that's neither here nor there). I think that they tend to emphasize a verifiability criteria that biases against inclusion of OSS projects among other things, which might be a reaction to the fact that there are so many of those articles right now. Anyhow, to actually make a point in this comment. All of the window manager articles that were nominated for deletion are related, and should almost certainly be considered together somehow. Also, if they all do end up getting deleted (which seems likely, since a very stringent notability criterion is in vogue with editors these last couple of years), it would be super if we could merge their useful content into the Tiling window managers article between the deletion being decided on and the article content actually going away. —Roguelazer (talk) 10:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • I think this is a fair comment, though in the case of dwm the reduction to "tiled WM" would lack its real contribution which is dynamic window management. Apparently wikipedia already has a page about it: Dynamic Window Manager, some background can also be found here . Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment I sympathize with many of the "keep" comments, but the fact is that Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria have nothing to do with inherent value or significance, and everything to do with a certain measure of notability, i.e. being mentioned in a publication. This is both good and bad. On the negative side, something that lends itself to a sensationalist or celeb-oriented bit of news has a better chance of getting a Knowledge (XXG) article about it than a brilliant project that is going to change the world. On the positive side, this has been a yardstick which has allowed Knowledge (XXG) to keep cranks from creating articles about all their pet theories that 3 people in the world believe in. Btw the the inventor of dwm, Anselmgarbe, has exactly the right approach in his comments - looking for acceptable references. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:21, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep: dwm is a revolutionary and new generation window manager; it implements concepts like binary tags, dynamic X clients placing and handling and it's for sure the best wm for experts we'll ever see. Since it's also the best choice for study and research about X11 programming and best programming practice it must be documented here as an important piece of the todays software. Clamiax (talk) 10:37, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Clamiax (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment I collected several references to secondary blogs and online media articles about dwm, here we go: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , -- some where quite significant, for example the dobbs code talk post. Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Knowledge (XXG) and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. Please read Notability of free open source software. Mclaudt (talk) 05:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I cite for you WP:SPIP "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Cited sources completely fulfill this note. Mclaudt (talk) 03:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment I noticed that one of the reasons the Xmonad page hasn't been deleted is because of osnews mentions, well here are a bunch of osnews entries of dwm: dwm 4.5 release, dwm 4.7 released, dwm 4.9 released, -- also Xmonad is clearly a clone of dwm that appeared after dwm itself and was highly inspired by dwm. If you delete dwm but keep Xmonad then something is seriously odd here... Anselmgarbe (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
    • OSNews is not a great source because it publishes user-contributed articles (with some oversight). But those links you provided are not even articles of that kind (e.g. this is how an article there looks like). Brief announcements of new version releases do not constitute in-depth coverage as required by WP:GNG. Pcap ping 12:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Ok I understand this and try to get the picture about what you are after. I really try to help here, but I wonder then what's the justification in not deleting Xmonad if the OSNews links are not considered sufficient? Or in other words what information lacks the dwm wikipedia entry that Xmonad has? If I have an answer to this I can estimate if it's worth the effort to dig through all the sources to make the WP:SPS more valid or if deleting this page and rescuing some content over for Tiling window manager and/or Dynamic window manager might be the right approach (but if so I'd say then also delete Xmonad, ion, etc). Please let me know, I really prefer to spend my time on development. Anselmgarbe (talk) 13:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
        • Well, the most obvious thing is that Xmonad is the subject of a peer-reviewed ACM paper. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Ok, I'm not aware of any dwm paper, I know people gave talks about dwm (including myself) here and there, but these things never went through some peer review I'm afraid. So whatever that means to you, wether you accept the sources that exist or not. Saying that dwm is some attic hobby project with no user base clearly misses the point (there are more dwm users than some other window managers that aren't considered to be deleted in wikipedia). If that isn't enough, I can't help, sorry and I can spend my time on creativity instead and continue with the development. If you delete this article I'm sure someone will create it again some day though -- it has been around here for years, it's a bit of a surprise you got the idea to delete it now... but do whatever you like. Anselmgarbe (talk) 13:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anselmgarbe (talk • contribs) 13:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Most non-academic software is not peer-reviewed either, and as I explained below, that's not really a deciding factor unless its paper(s) are highly cited, because they are usually written by the software authors so not independent. For the coverage usually found for production software, look at Ion (window manager)#Further reading. Pcap ping 14:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
              • Ok, I read through this further info of Ion, to be honest it's nothing special, so an equally credible external source for dwm would be dwm tutorial for Arch, dwm tutrorial for Ubuntu, or linuxgoodies tutorial. We encouraged people to contribute to the suckless.org wiki (the whole dwm website is a wiki) to contribute their stuff there, hence lot's of external documentation is actually hosted in a sense of WP:SPS and we can't really change this. Anselmgarbe (talk) 14:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
                • No, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument for keeping this article. If you feel that another article on a similar topic does not meet Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion, then you should nominate it for deletion. —Psychonaut (talk) 15:08, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
                  • I don't understand. I provided links to external sources for "further reading" that aren't under my or the suckless.org control and have a similar quality as the "Further reading" links in the Ion wikipedia article, which seem to justify the inclusion of Ion in wikipedia. I'm not saying that because the Ion page exists, that the dwm page should not be deleted. All I'm trying to do is understanding what information you require to delete or not delete. And things aren't really clear to me, because first I thought we'd require some scientific article about dwm that has been peer reviewed, then this was leveraged using the link to Ion as an example, and I'm trying to point out that similar sources exist for dwm -- without requiring the deletion or inclusion. Anselmgarbe (talk) 15:35, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I cite for you WP:SPIP "The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it – without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter." Cited sources completely fulfill this note. Mclaudt (talk) 03:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Ok I understand, though this means that notability for a popular open source project like dwm requires commercial online media coverage which is not an easy undertaking for a non-commercial open source project. I hence agree with Thayerw's comment below. I'd recommend to rethink the WPs notability rules for open source project. Articles in commercial online media are no proof of any significance of the project, in the given Ion case those articles are +5 years old and back then it was a quite exotic appearance in IBM developerworks. I'd say that the notability is proven a lot more if projects are spread throughout various blogs, forums, wikis and appear to be generally active and have got a community like in the dwm case, than relying on very old coverage in commercial online media. Just my final 2 cts to this. Anselmgarbe (talk) 16:09, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Dear Anselmgarbe, you are not the first person who see the incompetence of some editors and problems in WP:N concerning FOSS. Problem of notability of free software is one of the most important in Knowledge (XXG) and is still under development. So each deletion that produces a wide resonance suggests that there is a lot of work to do for complete consistency of WP:N. I think that activists for deletion should use their free time and efforts reading Notability of free open source software instead of destroying articles about such a popular=notable enthusiastic project. Mclaudt (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
        • (edit conflict) I did not take part in that 2007 AfD discussion, but looking at the XMonad article now, I'd probably !vote "weak delete". Its meager workshop paper is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is really peanuts in academic terms—doesn't have much in the way of citations (9) to establish it as an important academic result (compare with the AfD for Fabrik (software)). XMonad has a little secondary coverage from one well-known Haskell guy, Simon Peyton Jones, but that's about it, unless you count more blog coverage from Don Stewart, which is both the software's author and a co-author of an O'Reilly Haskell book. Haskell is a pretty small world, so that coverage is pretty marginal in terms of independence as well. Also, Knowledge (XXG) is not consistent; a lot depends on who shows up at the AfD. :-) Pcap ping 13:53, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Sorry, maybe I misunderstood something, but why each and every article about free and open source tiling window manager gets deleted? Is it a war? -- Bełamp (talk) 14:05, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Neutral.In my opinion more than enough evidence has been submitted to support the claim of influence the suckless community, and particularly dwm, has had on window manager development. However, I understand that this is not a majority vote and my opinion means little.

    It is unfortunate that Knowledge (XXG)'s notability policy has no special guidelines for open source software (OSS). There is an undeniable truth that most OSS will never reach a level of commercial or academic publication to meet Knowledge (XXG)'s current requirements, due in part to the very nature of the OSS philosophy.

    At the very least I hope that dwm and other OSS window managers are adequately summarized elsewhere within WP. Perhaps a new discussion should take place regarding special consideration for free (and widely used) software which may not otherwise receive significant attention to warrant inclusion at Knowledge (XXG). --Thayerw (talk) 15:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC) — Thayerw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Comment. I've looked at all the blog sources given above. For most the author could not even be identified. This piece, written by Jack Woehr qualifies per WP:SPS because he is a contributing editor to Dr. Dobb's, e.g. , but the blog entry in itself is just a rant that hardly says anything about dwm besides "Anselm R. Garbe &al's dwm is pretty close to the ultimate." In his blog, Woehr also has an interview with dwm's author, Mr. Garbe, but they talk about wmii and its predecessor, wmi, but not about dwm. Duh. Pcap ping 18:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm capable to find only Fluxbox and JWM window managers. Keep in mind that previous links are not only mention of these window managers in this book. Each has its own paragraph, and it is strange that google book search shows such a few pages. I have my own copy of this book. So google book search shows much less quantity of results than really exists. I added your links to Fluxbox and JWM page. Mclaudt (talk) 10:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep Information about features, history and availability of tiling window managers is important for making decisions which one to use. This kind of information is typically looked up in wikipedia. --HV (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm sorry but I don't feel that the article in FreeX can be seen as a sole authoritative source indicative of the subject's notability. For one, I generally disagree that a single inaccessible source can satisfy WP:N. Secondly, and more importantly, the article was written by Tobias Walkowiak, who's been very active on on the software's website and who is also listed as one of the "people are/were involved mainly in wmii and dwm development as developers and contributors". — Rankiri (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Article in FreeX is reliable source. It is paper magazine and it is written by specialists in that field. It satisfies WP:N. Your notice about Tobias Walkowiak is very strange. Who do you think should write articles about software? It is normal when author writes about his project in some magazine. It means that this software is notable. Sorry but your arguments suggests your full incompetence in that field. Mclaudt (talk) 00:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • It may be normal for an author to write about his project in some magazine, but it also disqualifies that article as a reliable source. — Rankiri (talk) 00:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Mclaudt, people here keep referring you to our policies, such as WP:N and WP:RS, yet your responses, such as the one above, consistently indicate that you haven't read them. It seems you've learned the words, but not their meanings. For example, a "reliable source" doesn't mean that the source is an expert; it means (in part) that the source is independent of the subject. Please actually read the policies before posting any further arguments. It will save everyone a lot of time. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • This article is not self-published, so according to WP:N and WP:RS, it is RS. Please be so kind to present correct paragraph that makes this article not RS. If someone of deletionists would be specialist in IT-field, that fact could save much more time. Mclaudt (talk) 00:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Again, it seems you didn't bother to read WP:N and WP:RS. If you had, you would know that not being self-published is a necessary, but not sufficient, criterion. Also, the paragraph you are asking about is in a big conspicuous box at the very top of the WP:N page, helpfully labelled as being a summary of the whole policy: "A topic that is suitable for inclusion and has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." (emphasis mine) The only possible way you could have missed it is if you didn't bother opening the page to begin with. Finally, whether or not any given editor is an expert in IT (and as an aside, it's rather presumptuous of you to think that none of the editors here are) has absolutely no bearing on their ability to interpret and apply Knowledge (XXG) policy. —Psychonaut (talk) 00:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The chief-editor of magazine remains independent from dwm. And cause the selection of theme is always the decision of editor, that fact that author is one of developers is irrelevant to independence of editor. So source is magazine, and this magazine as a source is totally independent, and the fact that entire article is about dwm increases notability. So according to WP:RS, it is RS. Mclaudt (talk) 00:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
  • See WP:SPIP and WP:V#SELF. And again, even if this was an entirely independent, fully accessible article from an unambiguously reputable and trustworthy source, it would still be the bare minimum that would almost definitely have some difficulty establishing notability in most AfD discussions. This one, however, is an inaccessible article from an obscure German publication of no demonstrated reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, written by a single author who has a clear personal connection to its subject. There is just no way it can considered a reliable secondary source independent of the subject serving to demonstrate the notability of the subject in an exclusive manner. — Rankiri (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Relisted as the discussion is a complete mess with all the SPA accounts, etc. Substracting all of them, there is not enough of a strong consensus right now. JForget 00:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • There is nice links at the end of page you linked. There is many people who believe this software is notable regardless of existence or nonexistence sources you consider reliable. This is not meatpuppety because people who come here from reading such pages mostly don't just follow instructions, but really would like to help Knowledge (XXG) get rid from obsolete rules which conflict with project goal. There is many people who actually use such desktop managers and most of them are high quality IT specialists. And can you call it promotion? Community just believe article about dynamic window manager should be here, they don't try to make such article NPOV. Also there _is_ third party sources anyway, just consider following links I added to the end of article. And please read Knowledge (XXG) is not a bureaucracy — if existing rules fails to prove notability of such article, rules should be changed, nor article deleted. Necrosporus (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - First of all, if this is going to be kept, it should be renamed, Desktop Window Manager is much more notable. We have here the problem of establishing the notability of an open source software, something which is rather difficult. I'd like to have informations on the number of persons who downloaded it, the number of developpers etc. We need a special guidelines on GNUs etc. What are the similar window managers which have simlar popularity, maybe they can all be merged in one article. -RobertMel (talk) 03:29, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Can you prove your sentence "Desktop Window Manager is much more notable"? I'd said opposite: if you search for DWM in google or even Microsoft bing, you would get dynamic window manager in the first place — even Microsoft consider dwm more notable than their Desktop Window Manager, as bing is their search engine. Search engine criteria is much like Knowledge (XXG) Notability policy, but is more formalized and automated. Necrosporus (talk) 06:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I hope you are kidding, the desktop graphical user interface system on Vista and 7 which enable Aero, less notable than Dwm? I am very sympatic to Dwm, and I agree that establishing notability of GNU softwares is more problematic. I have a proposition of merging similarly popular window managers. What do you say? -RobertMel (talk) 15:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  Sandstein  06:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Under-sourced WP:BLP from a WP:SPA. Guy (Help!) 15:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Weak Keep Probably Notable under WP:PROF--many articles, a number of books, ed in chief though not for a major international journal. sufficient cites for the subject. I'd like it if someone could check fro reviews of her books in Hebrew, which would clearly show the notability as an author. . DGG ( talk ) 04:09, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. None of the many publications listed in the article, most of which are law-related, show-up in WoS. It would seem a reasonable presumption that a notable law professor should have at least a single journal publication in one of the >100 top law journals indexed by WoS, but this appears not to be the case. Certainly troubling, but I'm glad to change position if something else comes up. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2010 (UTC).
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete - It doesn't seem that her publication record is particularly impressive, and I don't think the journals she's been editor-in-chief of can be considered major (correct me if I'm wrong). However, I sort of think she almost meets several of the criteria of WP:PROF, so perhaps if someone can show that her work has been well-cited by others I might reconsider. PDCook (talk) 01:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Weak delete. Notability is more accurately measured as the max of one's accomplishments rather than the sum, and in this case I'm not seeing anything specific that rises high enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. EdJohnston (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:39, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're a linux.org.ru user about to "add weight to the argument" using the above suggestion, please note that what you're about to do is considered highly inappropriate. More importantly, you should know that this issue will not be settled by a simple majority vote. If no reliable sources for this software are found, it really doesn't matter If the color of your nickname is red or blue. See WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT and WP:CANVASS. — Rankiri (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment about color. But please tell me what does your link have common with meatpuppetry? Please read the translation carefully, see quote: "We must earnestly and energetically present arguments in favor of the weight of the article and the popularity of dwm. Carefully appends at the bottom of the comment." Please keep in mind that people here write their own opinions and they are not joint by family or subordination relationships. So I insist that you delete Meatpuppetry Notice or present due arguments. I wait for response. Mclaudt (talk) 10:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Did you actually read WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, and WP:CANVASS as suggested by Rankiri? It seems those answer your questions pretty clearly. —Psychonaut (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes I did. And you didn't present any prof of Meatpuppetry so I insist that you delete this notice. This is wide resonance (cause deleting a dwm suggests the incompetence of editors) and this is not Meatpuppetry cause each new editor presents his own proofs and links, as noticed and cited above. Mclaudt (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Did you? Meatpuppetry is the recruitment of editors as proxies to sway consensus. When you, the author that comment, asked people to vote keep in order to "put in place illiterate morons who wrecked his selfless work of enthusiasts, and to defend this strategically important area.", you violated that policy. — Rankiri (talk) 04:22, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: As with a few other AFDs below, this discussion is re-listed due to single-purpose accounts involved with possible WP:MEAT. --JForget 00:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note) The above user is attempting to canvass this AfD via email. See WP:AN/I#New meatpuppet recruitment. —Jeremy 07:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 22:09, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Aparently non-notable window manager. Can't find any independent third-party reliable sources establishing notability. Psychonaut (talk) 15:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. As mentioned in some of the comments, a law school dean would typically be considered notable per the WP:PROF guideline. But without reliable sources to verify, there is no proof that WP:PROF even applies. RL0919 (talk) 05:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

A biography by the subject's son, sole source is the family member's own company website. Fails WP:NPOV, WP:RS. Guy (Help!) 15:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Remains unsourced. I agree that dean of a law school is usually notable, but none of that is sourced. It is not verifiable. Having spent a considerable amount of time on this, I was unable to find anything except a few mentions of him as an author or participant in things like the ILO. --Bejnar (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Delete Verifiably a professor with quite a few peer reviewed articles, but I can't find any verifiable sources to show that he passes WP:PROF. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:39, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Contested prod. Unrefenced BLP article about a 21 year old footballer that plays for a club in the Montenegrin Second League. Fails WP:Athlete. Rettetast (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • The articles should be deleted because the subject does not meet Wikipedias criteria for inclusion. This is not about the quality of the article or your edits, but the subject itself. Rettetast (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

information Administrator note User:Daznam has been blocked 1 week for sock puppetry, and User:Dp4, User:Nem2, User:Ditek, and User:Fh4 have all been indefinitely blocked as socks of Daznam. To whomever closes this deletion discussion, please take this into account. –MuZemike 03:37, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Clearly fails of WP:GNG and WP:ATHLETE. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:28, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Hasn't played at a high enough level of football (ie in a fully professional league, or in international competition) to meet the notability guidelines. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 19:55, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Fails ATHLETE having not played at required level, no international appearances, no professional appearances. Fails GNG, nothing out there except footbaltalent.com type entries, to which anyone can add themselves, notable or not (just check out the youngest players listed). Doesn't even seem to appear on WP's own club profile of supposed club, and no reliable source obvious that he does in the real world --ClubOranje 10:27, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The previous AfD discussion resulted in "no consensus", however the article still fails WP:GNG as it has not received significant coverage outside blogs, howtos, forums or news. While it appears this framework is gaining popularity inside projects like "Gallery", it still fails WP:GNG. Ekerazha (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Yeah, it was a call to submit a cover for the book that will be released, but it has been removed now (apparently they have chosen the definitive book cover), but as I've already said this is not relevant here. Please add WP:GNG compliant sources for Kohana if any. Ekerazha (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. So funny. Many sites uses this php-web-framework and many peoples supports it and creates projects. Ok, you can say that "Kohana not needed", but it isn't reason to delete it from wiki. We have a lot of sites and blogs about Kohana, as example:], ], ] etc. If you want this framework to die, it might be good idea to say it to authors and, if they agrees with you, you(or they) can delete this page. It's simple, is it not? iorlas (talk) 02:16, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
— Iorlas (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Ok, what about "mostinspired.com"? ] Or "bayondcoding.com"? ] Maybe "return-true.com"? ] Can you search sites in google? Why you ignored net.tuts+? ]. I can also show you many and many russian resources, but i see what every wiki member, who requests to delete pages, hates russian resources(maybe racism? i dont want to throw this-like words). This is no AD, this(acticle in wiki) is information, this is collection of information about framework and it's urls. 80.70.236.61 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • What about comparison of frameworks? In this case it in WP:ATA#It's_useful, becouse somebody may wants to find best framework for his project. He can find comparison of frameworks in wiki and choose Kohana. But what next? He want to know more about it! What he want to see? Yes - Kohana (web framework). What happen if he cant find this page? He can do wrong choose. Yes, it is reason to keep this article becouse of WP:ATA#It's_useful. You want me to read "about arguments to avoid"? Maybe it will be good for you, but i know what i write. HH.ru one of most popular IT res in russia. Can you understand? ] It has over 6k visitors per day. You can simply read Habrahabr.ru. Also, i give link to blog, which means it approved by many and many people. Otherwise articles from this blog will be stuck in personal blog of author. 80.70.236.61 (talk) 16:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep This is a well established framework with a good community behind it, including some very good documentation (which is rare for most open source project, particularly ones that do not have a big/popular following) I've personally found this article useful just today, by getting some project history that wasn't easy to find through a search engine. rcross —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.125.157 (talk) 12:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
— Rcross (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Keep This is surely a notable framework by being one of the first php HMVC frameworks out there. This same talk (also based on kohana) will be held at the DPC(Dutch PHP Conference) one of the biggest php conferences in europe the talk is named here: Rjd22 (talk) 09:29, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
— Rjd22 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • When it will be published you'll have 1 reliable source (probably not sufficient to be notable), however there's nothing now, so they seem to be zero atm. Ekerazha (talk) 12:38, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
  • If/when the book is published, it may then count as a reliable source establishing notability for the subject of this article, and the article (if it is indeed deleted as a result of this discussion) can be recreated. The text of the article can always be recovered through WP:DRV. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:41, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Note : Relisted due to votes made by multiple single-purpose accounts. --JForget 00:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete I can't find significant analysis of this framework in multiple, reliable sources. The meatpuppetry through this and the earlier AfD bothers me. ThemFromSpace 01:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - I don't see any sources to show notability either. And I too share concerns about meatpuppetry. -- Atama頭 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep - Kohana is one of the latest and best OO PHP frameworks along with Yii. I was looking for a concise summary and history of the framework which is how I came across the Knowledge (XXG) page for it, just to find that people are thinking of deleting it, which is ridiculous when Kohana is a community driven project and would get no benefit per se from a Knowledge (XXG) page. If you delete Kohana you may as well delete every other PHP framework page from Knowledge (XXG). -- Sheldmandu 00:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC) — Sheldmandu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fails WP:BAND and WP:GNG. Jayjg 03:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The article was deleted before under a subtly different name. See the previous discussion. Normally this would mean speedy deletion, but so much time has elapsed that I cannot determine if this was simply recreation of deleted material, or if a more substantial effort was made.

Even so my original deletion rationale is as relevant today as it was then: "While individual members may play in bands that may be notable, and while the "XBox/Ex Box" link appears at first sight to be notable I believe that this band does not currently make the notable bands list."

Looking at the citations in the current article I see none that pass the WP:RS test. My own researches have revealed none. So I conclude that this is, once again, a fan article about a non notable band. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 12:33, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE please that (as nominator) I have re-read the article as it stands today. I have changed my opinion from delete to neutral, and feel that a fuller consensus than that which is emerging at present is required to do this discussion justice. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. (Search video game sources) MrKIA11 (talk) 13:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 14:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. Don't see how they qualify for WP:BAND. Bands like these can be notable, see The Minibosses, but this one doesn't seem that way. Pcap ping 14:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete - Although the band claims to be signed with a record label, they haven't actually released anything (and the record label is redlinked, which can't be good). The PRWeb reference appears at first sight to be evidence of notability, but the entire website is just advertisement and press releases. Basic case of WP:BAND. —LedgendGamer 21:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep. If you read the article you'll see that Microsoft legal issues keep the band from earning a profit, which means no US marketing. No selling on iTunes. No American tours. And basically no interviews, and no major label support. This doesn't mean that the band isn't popular and extremely notable, just that it's harder for Wikipedians to find nice juicy sources :).
    My argument: Pcap helpfully pointed out that a similar band, The Minibosses, has an extensive entry. However, note The EX Box Boys are fourteen times as popular as the Minibosses on Myspace. That's the Minibosses less than half a million to the Ex Box Boys' 7 million views.
    I understand Myspace isn't a citable source, but at some point sheer popularity over-rides the lack of media coverage. Sloggerbum (talk) 22:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment While I understand the point you're making, Knowledge (XXG) is an encyclopaedia, not a fanzine. Popularity is interesting, but it is not encyclopaedic. We require notability and verifiability, not popularity. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Comment Valid point - verifiability has been a pain on this page, but I do believe the band is culturally relevant, and I'd hate to see them overlooked because they aren't marketed in the states. However, I looked again and while most sources aren't valid, there's an excellent article in The Kirkland Reporter which actually covers most of the band. Would editing the page to include only facts from this source be enough to save it from deletion? Sloggerbum (talk) 23:08, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
        • All I have to offer on that is to suggest that you read WP:RS and WP:BAND in detail, and that you recognise that the material there may be sufficient or insufficient. It is for the consensus here to judge, so go to it and cite that article well. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:13, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Although The Minibosses are a similar band, they have five albums - but most are self-released - and, according to the article, won some bogus award on the Phoenix New Times. Mind, the Phoenix New Times seems to be little more than a local tabloid. If the Ex Box Boys had been able to actually release something, it'd probably allow them to pass WP:BAND, but I still don't see any way around it. Technically, WP:BAND is a guideline and can be ignored, but we'd hit verifiability issues because we're only really taking our popularity statistics from myspace, which brings us back to the same problem. —LedgendGamer 23:56, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
            • Hmmm...I just updated the page so that the main references are another third-person article and the local news story, and I think that helps with some of the verifiability issues. Going off your Minibosses description, they do sound fairly similar, though the X boys are clearly lacking in officially released albums. 71.132.196.92 (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Comment - the references have been reduced to just the legit third party sources. Sloggerbum (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I think you have done a good job creating a decent article from no real source material. I fear the closure of this discussion is likely to go against you despite all the hard work you have put in, simply because we need both notability and verifiability. If I am right I think the closing admin should first move the article in its then final state to your userspace to ensure that you have the best basis for enhancement as full references become available.Fiddle Faddle (talk) 00:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I appreciate your candor, and I see your perspective, but at the same time the references ARE now valid, and I still believe notability is very evident. I'd appreciate if a few more people could throw in their ideas on the matter. Sloggerbum (talk) 17:44, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
          • I agree that we need more people to look at the article and add to this discussion. I think it should not be closed in any haste. I agree that the references are valid, I'm just not sure they are sufficient. On the basis of the work you've done I'm going to change my opinion (above under the nomination) to neutral. I think the procedural discussion and the consensus of the community is well worth achieving here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 18:11, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

This musician has been a member of two marginally notable bands, Mechanical Poet and Tarakany!, plus presumably a third, Lady's Man, I can find no information on Lady's Man. Due to the bands he has been in, criterion 6 of WP:MUSICBIO can be argued so I didn't prod, however I can find no individual coverage for Mr Lenin thus failing WP:GNG. If coverage of this individual is found and the article sourced I will happily withdraw this nomination. J04n(talk page) 12:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Borderline speedy but the article has been around for a while so I thought I'd list it here. Could only find superficial coverage and some local newspaper columns by the staff therefore I don't think the organization meets WP:ORG NeilN 08:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to be largely self-promotion, its source is its own website, and its creator(s) exhibit WP:OWN and WP:COI behavior. Probably best to delete as being non-notable. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 08:41, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments

This AFD is a red-link within the article itself. Presumably something was omitted in the process. Maybe some AFD experts can help with that. Meanwhile, it might be worth pointing out that 70.51.91.85 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was trying to erase the page and this will aid in his effort, except he won't be able to rewrite it the way he presumably wants. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 15:15, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why it's red as clicking on the link leads here. I used Twinkle to add the AFD notice as I've done many times before. --NeilN 17:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
You're right. It must be highlighted as part of the template. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 17:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Purging the cache just now turned it blue for me. Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Bingo. ←Baseball Bugs carrots→ 18:49, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep.--Kubigula (talk) 05:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Redsn0w (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete. This may be notable, but I'm not seeing it; to be fair, I do see some blog coverage of this but nothing in what I would consider to be a reliable third party publication. I'll keep an open mind. JBsupreme (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep sources found, notable software. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:09, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete: The vast majority of references to redsn0w come from blogs. The secondary sources linked above all date from early to mid 2009 and tend to lean towards either "flash in the pan" or press releases covering a single version of the software. I don't think this meets notability for for multiple, sustained mentions in secondary sources. I think including this as more than a section of iPhone Dev (the developer) would constitute focusing on an obsolete product with only very minimal coverage. avs5221 (talk) 00:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable sources, and the fact that there isn't sustained coverage is irrelevant. Notability is not temporary. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The bio article comes here from a CSD I had raised commenting that the bio looks a pure hoax (with perhaps only one line being true, that of the person being a reporter of an Indian newspaper - but the chances of even this is slim). The admin refused a CSD that this doesn't look like an obvious hoax and had referred the article to AfD. Request AfD delete ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ ―Œ 06:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. The lack of notability for this subject is agreed by most folks in the discussion (and for good reason), so the real issue is merge vs. delete. Upon consideration of the content in the article, merging to WhyteGold seems dubious because virtually nothing in this article is relevant to the company, except the fact of his association with it, which is already in the company's article. RL0919 (talk) 05:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

The subject does not appear to meet the general notability guidelines. Two of the provided sources are dead links, and the third says he filed a lawsuit; merely filing a lawsuit does not make one notable. A quick search on Google revealed no reliable sources which mention this person. –Grondemar 04:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:17, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Redirect to WhyteGold. Fails WP:GNG but likely a legitimate search term. His closest claims to fame are filing a lawsuit - but the lawsuit doesn't appear to provide significant coverage of him - and owning the business (he's now mentioned in that article). VernoWhitney (talk) 15:12, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Notability doesn't even seem to be claimed. I'm always ready to reconsider new arguments or facts, but at the moment I don't see nothing. PanchoS (talk) 11:41, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete per PanchoS. Nothing notable about this person. In fact Google search returns more information about OTHER people named Peter de Beer than it does about this individual. --MelanieN (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Jacqueline Pascarl. Possibly also disambiguate.  Sandstein  06:28, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Can not find any sources for this, even the reference in the article fails to talk about the organization. Ridernyc (talk) 01:44, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Delete I can not find sources for this organization either, infact not only did the article not provide info on the organization, to me it implied that this was a one time act, as opposed to a new organization. Perhaps this would be more appropriate for Pascarl's article as a few sentences or a section MATThematical (talk) 03:20, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge - Merge into Jacqueline Pascarl. It is sometimes briefly mentioned in interviews with Jacqueline Pascarl (e.g. ), but can't find any reliable sources with enough material to expand this to more than a stub. Smocking (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes looking for sources I found a ton of Operation Angel organizations. Ridernyc (talk) 23:04, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jacqueline Pascarl. It seems to be a one-woman operation, and the bio of that woman is much better referenced. Jim Heaphy (talk) 06:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree with the Merge commentary above, but perhaps rather than redirecting this page to the founder, we could turn it into a disambig page, since there are at least two "Operation Angel"s. Lankiveil 02:01, 7 March 2010 (UTC).
  • Merge to Jacquline Pascari. This article, consisting of two sentences and one reference, could merit a brief mention there. It has no business as a Knowledge (XXG) article on its own, especially since there are at least FOUR other organizations called Operation Angel, all of which seem to be more notable than this one. --MelanieN (talk) 21:29, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Merge with Jacqueline Pascarl. She seems to be the only major player in this operation, and it doesn't seem big enough to warrant its own page. ErikTheBikeMan (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. I have no doubt that there are Choctaws in Florida. Whether there's valid claims or not - or if such a nation exists is completely unreferenced. Deletion is not intended to be an affront, but recognition that WP:RS is vital in all cases such as this. No RS's have been provided. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:38, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

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

Non-tribal, obscure group. Many of the "references" previously listed in the article do not, in fact, mention this group. Possibly simply self-promotion. Uyvsdi (talk) 00:05, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

Ive checked the remaining references in the article, and none of them mentioned the subject of the article either. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 11:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete-Per the above, the only sources that seem to exist for its existence is its own website and mentions on blogs, and other unreliable sources. There seems to be no evidence that they are a tribe of Native American and given the absence of available information, dont seem to be notable either.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:19, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Strong Keep see talk page, also listed as unrecognized tribe in Wiki. See also DOI/BIA records here., listed at 500nations.com, map showing the Choctaw tribe in the Florida panhandle near Destin here , wapedia notes that smaller Choctaw groups are in Florida here, etc. Clearly notable, clearly organized as a tribe - just not a federally recognized one. (GregJackP (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
Wapedia is a mirror site of here and doesn't count, neither does it being on the article "List of unrecognized tribes" here at En Wiki. If you go to the 500 nations link, the page has tribes that are debunked elswhere as "Pseudo tribes" and has adverts for Russian mail order brides, so how reliable a source do you think they really are? As for the map, it show the actual Choctaw tribe once controlled parts of extreme western Florida, in proximity to Alabama and Mississippi where the real tribe actually lived, not in the Tampa bay/Marianna, Florida Area. And their petition for Recognition link, how about this one where it shows they were denied because they, as a group and as individuals, could not prove they were Native Americans? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You misread the ruling, which was not on the merits of the case, but on jurisdictional grounds. It doesn't mean what you allege it does - the tribe was asking for land to be put in trust which is not authorized by statute unless the tribe is already federally recognized, and a recent SCOTUS decision limits it even further. Further, the fact that the tribe is contesting various issues with BIA is indicative that they are notable. (GregJackP (talk) 02:26, 28 February 2010 (UTC))
Actually, I didn't, I linked to the wrong document. Here it is where it says this:

"The Decisions responded to two requests made on behalf of Appellant, both of which apparently requested the acquisition of land into trust, and one of which apparently requested “an accounting for previous trust activity and compensation to the beneficial heirs of the Choctaw Nation of Florida.”3 The Regional Director concluded that Appellant and its members did not fall within the definitions of “Tribe” and “individual Indian,” respectively, that are in the trust land acquisition regulations, 25 C.F.R. § 151.2, and Show Cause (OSC), at 2-3, Mar. 31, 2009. Thus, the merits of Appellant’s claims are within the scope of this appeal. See Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Deputy Assistant Secretary - Indian Affairs, 48 IBIA 259, 265-66 (2009) (distinguishing a failure to take action from taking action that declines to grant the specific relief requested)." Sorry for the confusion. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:50, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

  • Comment - read the cited regulation (25 C.F.R. 151.2), which defines "tribe" as having to be federally recognized, and "individual Indian" as being an "enrolled member of a tribe." Thus, without having achieved federal recognition previously, the case was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. They were not making a ruling that they were not Indians, just that they couldn't act because the tribe was federally recognized. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))


Also, if you look at their entry in the List of unrecognized tribes in the United States, it is cited with a link to a list of groups identified as "fraudelent" by the Cherokee Nation..< This group previously styled themselves as the the "Hunter Tsalagi-Choctaw Tribe", as mentioned in a few of the other links I already provided. Tsalagi is the word the Cherokee use for themselves. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:25, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - there is always controversy of a petition of a tribe to be recognized or not - a mixed tribe is not uncommon, see for example my cousin's tribe, the Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, which also had recognition problems. It applied for recognition in 1934 (denied), in 1943 (denied), and in 1978 (granted in 1980). The point you make is immaterial to their notability, and the fact that it is listed as a "fraudulent" in facts points to their notability, as a secondary reference. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
  • Comment. Odawa, Ojibwe, and Potawatomi are the Three Fires Council - they have been closely related for centuries and Algonquian languages. Choctaw and Cherokee come from two different areas (in the 18th century, the former were in Mississippi and western Alabama; the latter in western Tennessee and northwestern North Carolina) and their languages are completely unrelated. I disagree that all tribes that don't have federal recognition are controversial - the Houma, Yuchi, and Natchez people are widely accepted in Indian Country. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
How is a .gov site unreliable? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 04:12, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Which one is a .gov site? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 04:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It think it takes more than a failed court petition to be notable, or else we'd have a whole lot more stub BLPs. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
It would seem to follow that for a group to be notable, they would have to actually do things. What does this organization do? -Uyvsdi (talk)Uyvsdi
  • Comment - that is not the standard. See WP:ORG, which states: "No organization is considered notable except to the extent that independent sources demonstrate that it has been noticed by people outside of the organization." (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))
I don't think anybody has found a source which indicates they have been noticed by media or recognized by any outside organization. The only sources that have been presented are the group's own website and official rejections of its application to be acknowledged as a recognized Native American group. Throw in the lack of any documented historical connection and I don't see any way to justify keeping the article. Zeng8r (talk) 20:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In order to have Wiki article creation only two sources of my choice were to be posted. However, more than 7 were listed. Those have been deleted But one was an artilce written by Jackson County Times, by Riley editor. The other was"A long hunt: Death of the Buffale East of the Mississippi" by Ted Bleue, which clearly states where the Choctaw Tribe was located which was called Big Springs of Choctawhatchee which is "Marianna" Today and Chipola.

There were also treaties international and domestic listed to show the Choctaw Nation in Florida and relations with the Spainsh Nation and Seminoles and Creeks. Although we are experiencing issues with uneducated individuals with agendas, that does not preclude the Choctaw Nation existence in the locations they are clearly mentioned in every link that has been posted. That would be Florida, Fort Brooks, Port Charlotte, East and West Florida...etc. Some get the names right and some get confused on the name because they did not consult the Choctaws.

The Choctaws have experienced theft of customs and culture by those that are complicit and facilate the "Doctrine of Discovery" and violates the laws of the Constitution of United States and failure to give "Equal Treatment" to all Tribal Nations even those which claim by law.

There are federal statutes and Congressional Acts, which were passed in the early 1900's for the Choctaws which live in Florida but the Commission has failed to enforce those laws on the local level. So it has become necessary for us to go to federal level which is the PDF files you have listed. Although we are to be given the highest regard by the BIA. I would like to know who said their no Choctaws in Florida, when there are very many that inhabit our tribal lands. So don't be alarmed we are setting the record strait, because we have the proof and the documents. I have many friends that come from the carribean and they are called Calusa. If you think that is my personal opinion then the same for outside opinions that have been accepted as reliable sources. They can be catogerized as someone's personal thoughts of what they observe while sitting in the bush.

Out of respect for the Cherokees which are on our rolls we added their names to our title, but it was not done in fraud it was done out of love and benelovence for Cherokees which live among the Choctaw Nation of Florida.

The Choctaws which inhabit anywhere in Florida, have signs of preservation by Towns and rivers and mounds location; based on Bernad Romans Concise Natural History; James Bartram travels in the Country of the Choctaws, Cherokee and Creeks; and The Early History of the Creeks and their Neighbors. So deleting the information provided and approved previous was unfair. This hurts the light which needs to shed on the Choctaw experience,Pain and suffering, and harm. Yakoki (Thank you)!67.235.129.179 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC

Your "sources" did not mention your "tribe'. They, if they deal with the Choctaw at all, deal with the Choctaw who wre removed to Oklahoma. The did not in one instance mention you specifically. The Calusa are a seperate people, who occupied much of southern Florida, part of the Caloosahatchee culture. The Chatot mentioned in one of your references, are not thought to be Choctaw. If you are able to rewrite and cite this article properly, it may not be deleted. But I've spent the last 2 days looking for references to your "tribe", and have found only what has been posted here, your own website and denials for recognition by the federal government. Knowledge (XXG) is not an avenue for you to press your case with the federal govt or to prove your existence as a Native people. We are an encyclopedia. We rely on reliable sourced material. Read our rules and policies, I know links to them have been posted to your talk page. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:31, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong delete–a notable organization should actually do something. This organization has absolutely no documented accomplishments. -Uyvsdi (talk) 07:44, 28 February 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi

  • Strong delete per above, even taking into concern the IP's tl;dr rant. No sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • 14:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
You already !voted above, TPH. Jclemens (talk) 06:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment - I think that we are losing track of the issue here. It is not whether or not the tribal claim is genuine or factual. It is whether the tribe is notable. I think the following point to notability under WP:ORG:
  • The tribe is mentioned as by the Cherokee Nation on their website - a reliable secondary source.
  • The tribe is mentioned by the U.S. Government, Bureau of Indian Affairs - a reliable primary source.
  • The tribe is mentioned by 500nations.com - a reliable secondary source.

Again, whether or not the claim is genuine is not germane to notability. They have been noted several places. (GregJackP (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC))

Three mentions, two of which say the organization is disingenuous, do not constitute "significant coverage in secondary sources." The Cherokee Nation mention is a list of 204 groups on an Excel spreadspread – not a published article focusing on this group. None of the citations you mentioned were listed in the previous versions of the article, anyway. This group is not "national or international in scale" nor have they "had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." -Uyvsdi (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
  • Comment. I'm not sure whether the group's claim is accurate or fraudulent, but I agree that that's really beside the point. Even a notable fraudulent claim would be notable, and would merit inclusion if we had sources to show that notability. I'm not sold on this one, as there are indeed problems with sourcing as noted above. UltraExactZZ ~ Did 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Not that I'm advocating a CU or anything of the sort but this definately passes the duck test for WP:COI. Removing all of the non reliable sources or sources that don't do anything more than mention that the organization exists and there's not enough there to pass notability guidelines. I wish i could add some great analysis that hasn't already been added by Uyvsdi or Heironymous Rowe. Nefariousski (talk) 23:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • comment I restored a basic source that had been removed--whether it refers to the group being discussed in the article I cannot determine, but it needs to be at least considered. (there are other references also in the earlier versions, and I think it appropriate for those commenting here to take them into account also). I have no opinion about keeping or deleting the article, but I have examined the history of the article, and I am not comfortable with the process of removing all references and then urging deletion as unreferenced. The people at the AfD can determine the relevance. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
Tell you what, the refs are still there in the history. YOU go check each one of them to see if they contained the information they were supposed to cite, and if they mention the subject of the article without a major stretch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Then come back and give us your opinion of the references and their removal. They were removed for a reason, but I dont want you to take my word for it, please investigate if for yourself. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 05:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment. I removed the William Bartram reference. No page number was provided and his writings have no mentions of a Choctaw Nation of Florida. By the way, the Smithsonian's Handbook of North American Indians: Southeast make no mention of Choctaws in Florida either. -Uyvsdi (talk) 06:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)Uyvsdi
Also, I've just followed the reinserted link, and downloaded the pdf for "Choctaw Citizenship Litigation", a book published May 1916, written by P. J. Hurley, National Attorney for the Choctaw Nation as a report to Major Victor M. Locke Jr., Principal Chief of the Choctaw Nation. As the entire book is close to 900 pages of generally legaleese, court prodeedings, and etc, I skimmed around, read a few pages here and there, but the first 8 or 9 pages seem to give a general summary. It discusses the Treaty of Dancing Rabbit Creek(this article contains a map of the land being ceded in Miss. by the treaty) and the process by which land was divided amongst the Choctaw in Oklahoma, the left over land and what to do with the proceeds of such land, and the main focus of the book, did Choctaw who had elected to stay in Mississippi in 1830 and not remove to Oklahoma, and are therefore not on the rolls, have a standing and right to the proceeds of the leftover land. It then seems to go into the many court cases, petitions to congress, frauds committed by unscrupulous whites trying to get ahold of the proceeds, etc. It does not seem to mention Florida at all. Mr Hurleys legal arguments seem to be that those who stayed in Mississippi accepted citizenship there and of the U.S. and were not entitled to have the rolls reopened and be distributed land in Oklahoma. So, unless some undocumented group of Choctaw in Mississippi, moved to Florida, and began eventually calling themselves the Florida Choctaw, I dont see how this book or a link to it can have any relevance to this "tribe" or in proving their notability? The link was included by the original author for the aforementioned SYNTH and OR and to beef up there cites. Now, I encourage anyone who doubts to follow this link, download the pdf and verify what I've said. In fact, I'd like anyone who isn't comfortable with my removing of spuriously sourced material and references to check those references and let the rest of us know if their removal was correct or not, and if they weren't, why. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:17, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete Having had a look at the older references, I see that many do not mention this group of Choctaw at all, or peripherally. I can find no evidence that the current 'Choctaw Nation of Florida' is recognised as a entity by reliable sources. Although the Choctaw were originally in the area now known as Florida, I can find no evidence of the notability of the current 'Nation'. At best, this might merit a one-sentence entry on the main Choctaw article, but certainly not an article of its own. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:13, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete for woefully inadequate sourcing. Knowledge (XXG) articles must be based on verifiable references from reliable sources.   — Jeff G. ツ 18:47, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete. I agree with UltraExactZZ that the issue here isn't whether this tribe does or doesn't have a legitimate claim, but whether there is evidence of notability in reliable sources. I find no such evidence. There have been some proceedings involving this organization and the BIA. But no substantial coverage of these proceedings in newspapers, magazines, books, or any other third-party media has been produced, and I couldn't find any either, under the name "Choctaw Nation of Florida" or under the alternative name "Hunter-Tsalagi". I would analyze this as we would any other piece of litigation about which someone wanted to write an article: notability is not established by governmental rulings and other primary sources, but only by evidence that reliable third party sources are paying attention. And, it seems, they aren't.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete At this point, I have read a little of the reference I reinserted, but enough to make it likely that it may not actually be relevant, and I accept Heironymous Rowe's more knowledgeable opinion on my talk p. that he has read much of it also, and thinks the same. It seems that there are no reliable sources. I apologize, btw, for any implication of other than improper motives--I may have become too sensitized by discussions on some other subjects at afd. DGG ( talk ) 05:21, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. JForget 02:31, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

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

No sources or evidence whatsoever that such a genre even exists. Nymf hideliho! 00:02, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. Cherokee Nation (Fraudulent Indian) Task Force: Fraudulent Group List (as of December 14, 2008) (Accessible as of March 28, 2009 here)

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

↑