Knowledge

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by RHaworth. Peridon (talk) 09:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Punch Sport Drink (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article appears to be a complete hoax. Only g-hits appear to have taken content from this article. Creator of the article is a SPA who has only created this article. Toddst1 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete obvious hoax. Only hits I could find were for "fruit punch sport drink". The latest archive of HR Nicholson's website from 2006 makes no mention of the product, neither does this Yahoo! Finance profile. Ten Pound Hammer • 03:03, 11 August 2012 (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 deleted for multiple reasons --Versageek 02:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Kaylee Procter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable actress who fails the general notability guideline due to lack of independent coverage. Googling for "Kaylee Procter" on Google Books, News, and News archives turned up absolutely nothing. Also note that a single television role in a series which itself may not be notable is not sufficient to establish notability per the notability guideline for entertainers. CtP (t • c) 23:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as I originally tagged it - given that one of her other projects is simply listed as her father's films, I doubt these are real television series. MikeWazowski (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Sorry about that, it seems you had already tagged it as I created a rationale with Twinkle. Regardless, none of the topics this user writes articles about seem notable or even real. Speedy delete per you. CtP (t • c) 00:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2012 (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. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Trust, but verify (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This phrase has been repeated in reliable sources, but it has not been the subject of coverage. — Bdb484 (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ronald Reagan. There seem to be no sources for the expression on its own, but there are sources for Reagan saying it. -- BenTels (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep There are entire books written about this. Note that the phrase did not originate with Reagan; it's a Russian proverb, doveryai, no proveryai, which he used in negotiation with the Russians. Warden (talk) 22:09, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What books? — Bdb484 (talk) 22:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Please see the search link above. See also WP:BEFORE. Warden (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I've clicked the link. I don't see any. Can you point to a specific book written about this phrase? — Bdb484 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. A well-known concept and catchphrase with a very interesting history. Reagan's adoption of the saying via Suzanne Massie is discussed in multiple sources e.g. Some sources also attribute the first English use to Damon Runyon, although the talk page notes this may be subject to dispute. Worthy of an article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. There's already an entire category of political catchphrases like this. For examples, stay the course, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, the war to end war, what would Jesus do?, mistakes were made, socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor, and there you go again. Many of them have had been put up for deletion, but they were kept because they are well-known and significant phrases, like this one. I can't see how Knowledge would be improved by getting rid of this article. -NorsemanII (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Warden, Arxiloxos, and NorsemenII. Plenty of sources exist and can be added easily. Bearian (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Passes WP:GNG per sources cited in article + those cited by Arxiloxos above.--JayJasper (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser  03:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Capitol Years 1995–2007 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This is unlikely to ever grow more as an article. I don't think it needed its own article in the first place. LF (talk) 23:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral: This is one of those ironic cases. The album has been reviewed critically in several reliable sources and so, formally, seems to meet WP:GNG. However, the general opinion in those reliable sources is that the album is no great shakes -- essentially, not notable in the world of music. So this may be one of those ironic cases in the wonderful world of music, movies, et cetera, where the album may essentially be notable for not being notable. -- BenTels (talk) 23:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether notability, or otherwise, depends on whether reviews are positive or not. N-HH talk/edits 11:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Formally, it doesn't. That's my complaint about cases such as this one: we're just looking at whether or not reviews exist, but not at what they're actually saying. So if the critical reviews say that a movie/album/book/et cetera is eminently forgettable (i.e. not notable), then we consider it notable because someone said that it isn't notable. -- BenTels (talk) 15:11, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Has received coverage in reliable, third party sources. Many of which are already in the article. The reviews are long and detailed. Passes the WP:GNG. I don't follow the sentiment of "not being able to expand it". Seems like it would be relatively easy to expand... Sergecross73 msg me 01:33, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The article can be expanded with a "Critical reception" section using info from the multiple album reviews provided. The album also charted at number 16 in Greece, so adding a "Charts" section to the article is also possible. Both WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS appear to be satisfied.  Gongshow  07:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Pretty notable band and hence prima facie one of their officially released albums, even if a compilation, is going to be worth having an entry on, especially since all their other albums are here and hence losing this one would create a rather odd gap. OK, that's not strictly what the current notability guidelines for albums - oddly, in my view - say, but that doesn't matter as it clearly has independent coverage in its own right anyway. N-HH talk/edits 11:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It received enough media coverage to justify its own article. No reason for this album to be deleted, even at AFD, since it meets all the notability criteria. — ΛΧΣ21™ 02:16, 17 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 05:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Bodens (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article was previously a WP:PROD on the rationale "Article is referenced to primary sources and directories; no reliable sources indicating that this company meets the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria." The Prod was removed by the article creator after adding a local newspaper link about their involvement in the annual Connections competition, along with a note on the Talk page. The references remain too weak for WP:CORPDEPTH, in my opinion, and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a sustainable argument, so I'm bringing this article to AfD on the original Prod rationale. AllyD (talk) 22:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete -- unless I am mistaken this is little more than a proprietory youth club, charging parents for their children to be taught ballet, other dance and drama, after school or at weekends. There are 100s of such institutions and they are all NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as spam, never mind what they do there... Peridon (talk) 18:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Im Calumk I wrote the article, I feel it is valid and should not be deleted, I have edited the page so as to remove anything that seems like advertising / spam, and i asure you thats not the point of this article. "Bodens" is a performing arts school, with a very good reputation among the youth theatre schools in the UK, It is notable for several reasons, Including producing / teaching several people involved in london theatre . I have added a 'Notable Ex-Students' section to the page which i plan to expand on over the next few weeks. Although mentioning other stuff WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is quite rightly not a good argument, It is also not a reason for deletion. The article is Defiantly not NN, as Bodens is referenced to in articles from newspapers, and mentioned in other sites run by the national theatre in London, as well as producing and writing the new musical 'A Little Princess' which was performed earlier this year, and is now in the process of being made available for other companies to perform. Its worth mentioning that the school has also been running for a notable period of time (30 years), and is not just a new 'club' trying to get on wikipedia... One of the people who put this article up for deletion said "I havent heard of it" which i think is also a pretty lousy reason for trying to delete something... Especially on wikipedia, which is designed specifically to tell you things, you dont already know. Calumk (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

It's looking better, but the good refs need increasing, with something less local than the Watford Observer if possible. Find a way of losing any 'offerings'. Say which productions the kids were used in. Izzy Frizzle's School of Entertainment may supply kids for similar works, but if they're all at the Little Theatre at Much Twittering in the Bushes they wouldn't count for much. But if they got reviewed in the Times... (The kids, that is.) You've still got time, and I can always revive it later if it goes and you tell me you've some new good stuff. Knowledge won't be complete for at least another six months. BTW I said I'd heard of Chickenshed and that to me Bodens meant a wood shavings using business. (I see their wagons all over on the motorways. Amazing that there are so many wood shavings to be had in these days of plastic and flatpack...) Knowledge is for telling people about things that can be referenced in accordance with our policies, and not for things that are unknown. If you can get the article up to scratch, I'll happily change my !vote. Peridon (talk) 16:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Coverage is insufficient to meet notability. Aide from the Watford Observer, none of the sources are useful in establishing notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 15 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

YouTradeFX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, WP:SPAM and WP:COI. Has a few links but they seem to be press releases and merely trivial coverage or mentions. Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopaedia article. Hu12 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Note that the CNBC reference currently in the article is an advertiser's profile and not a news piece about the company. -- Whpq (talk) 16:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG. Google News Archive finds only press releases and passing mentions. --MelanieN (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2012 (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 under CSD G5. Elockid 23:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Swedes (ethnic group) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unnecessary content fork of Swedes, which is explicitly about the ethnic group. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 22:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete WP:POINTY, content fork. Nominator is however wrong in saying that the Swedes is explicitly about the ethnic group - there is no meaningful distinction between Swedes as a Nation and as a Nation group and that is why there is only one article about both. Being a Swede means to be a Swedish citizen and/or to identify with a Swedish identity. ·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 00:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment Swedes says:

    For information on the population of Sweden, see Demographics of Sweden.

    But either way, there's no need for a third article on any aspect of the topic. Dori ☾Talk ☯ Contribs☽ 00:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

That article is obviously about the demographic composition of the population, not about Swedish citizens as a nation.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 14:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

nation and ethnic group dont work we would atleast remove "nation" from the main lead to clarify what the article is about in the article wording too Abminostropkov (talk) 08:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

because that article was about ALL swedes not just ethnic swedes Abminostropkov (talk) 08:14, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy delete—under A10. This is straight copy/paste from Swedes with one minor change and obviously the title is not a plausible search term.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

read the talk page first before you do anything i was willing to discuss the subject and someone "Speedy delete" is not respectfull, people should get the chance of discussing things first before doing something like this or that Abminostropkov (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect/Incubate perhaps the author wants something else out of this article? It would be better if it was placed on Articles for Creation first rather than create one already. Bleubeatle (talk) 12:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

no i created this article because of "swedes" article did was not about the ethnic group but just the people, i see now that "nation" was removed from .This article is about. meybe a good solution would be that we also removed "nation" from the lede and replace it with "Swedes (Swedish: svenskar) are a Germanic ethnic group native to Sweden" Abminostropkov (talk) 18:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not since that would be incorrect.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 01:09, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:FORK. The only emphasis is on the 'germanic' part. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2012 (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

List of Indian playback singers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Blatant advertising. "Comments" section is full of gushy quotes like "is known for his voice similar to that of legendary Kishore Kumar. He is also known as Price of Pop in Pakistan and is famous all over the world." Not a single source in sight. Blatant spam magnet, with lots of people throwing their own names on. There's just so much spam here, and the potential for more, so we gain nothing with this article but people pimping themselves out. Ten Pound Hammer • 21:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's a mess. I just haven't had time to work on it. I do think it's necessary, however. If we didn't have this page, people would trying to jam their favorite singers into the Bollywood article, which is already a bloated tribute to fan obsession. Instead of throwing it out because it's bad, help make it better. That would mean removing everything except name, awards, and sourced comments. Zora (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

" If we didn't have this page, people would trying to jam their favorite singers into the Bollywood article." So they either jam it there or jam it here. Catch-22 much? Ten Pound Hammer • 01:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:43, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep AfD is not for Clean up. --Anbu121 (talk me) 01:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Needs sources and tidying, but not deletion. --Michig (talk) 06:29, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems to be a decent list for playback singers. Just needs improvement in sources and structure. Not a delete. Bleubeatle (talk) 07:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Agreed that it needs improvement not deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 07:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment this topic seems better suited to a category than a list article. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep It is an overall informative list, which needs some work. Like all have said, AfD is not for cleanup. Its my friendly advice to the nominator to withdraw. ♛♚★Vaibhav Jain★♚♛ 11:52, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. The article needs cleanup. Torreslfchero (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. I don't understand nominator's rationale. Those are all reasons to clean the article and not delete. And almost all entries in it are blue links. Where is "lots of people throwing their own names" coming from? §§AnimeshKulkarni (talk) 21:24, 12 August 2012 (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: Although there is a clear concern over the stablished notability of the subject in discussion, it also lies far beyond the general notability criteria as being discussed by several third party sources, so no general consensus was reached. — ΛΧΣ21™ 15:59, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Knowledge contributors. Knowledge has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

DVBViewer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article fails WP:NOTABILITY, Article was re created by an WP:SPA advertising-only account with no other edits other than related to DVBViewer. Was speedied twice under PROD and once as G11. This is Part of a larger long term campaign to exploit wikipedia in order to promote DVBViewer. Nothing more than Self-promotion and product placement, which wikipedia is WP:NOT Hu12 (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Don't know about the promotional part, but the software in question does not meet WP:NSOFT -- it's not notable. -- BenTels (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - unreferenced, no indication of notability for this software, created by an SPA as possible advert/spam. Dialectric (talk) 12:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I'll probably go for delete but I'd like an explanation from the nominator for this edit. — Jeraphine Gryphon  12:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • WP:BOOKSPAMED, WP:COI addition of Non-notable manuals here (after being prodded by you), and subsequently expanded under his/her IP here to give the "appearance of notability" (and to delete the tags) by populating the article with WP:CITESPAM after you tagged the article with notability concerns here. At most merely trivial coverage and meaningless mentions by being included in lists of similar products, failing WP:CORPDEPTH miserably. Additionally, a whole paragraph of shop manuals does not lend itself to the subjects notability. --Hu12 (talk) 14:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: my findings are not different from those of BenTels: nothing suggests notability per WP:GNG and/or WP:NSOFT. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Strong Keep: I don't whether any of the voters has a PC with a TV card, but amongst HTPC users DVBViewer is amongst the most popular & respected TV software, this is evidenced by the fact that it is used as adapted OEM software for 3 of the top TV card and box manufacturers, TechniSat, TerraTec, and TechnoTrend . It is also supported by the main open source EPG grabber, EPGCollector along with Microsoft's Windows Media Center. The article for ProgDVB (a commercial rival) uses references that are completely out of date - a poll on a thread that was most active in 2005, and another link that does not work, since then there has been a huge amount work on DVBViewer, but really I'm not sure polls can really be considered reliable anyway. One issue may be that the software is most popular in Germany- the German Knowledge article has survived perfectly well without challenge to its notability. You can see the forums have many thousands of posts, many more I would submit than the forums of many free applications listed on this site. Ezekial 9 (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC) — Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • A link I think that points quite reliably to its popularity - 5,213,623 views on Videohelp (583 this month), compare this to 9,515,255 but only 381 views this month for the free alternative MediaPortal which has a Knowledge article here. I think it compares quite favourably considering that you would expect a free software to be more popular. You can also see plenty of discussion i.e. 1000+ mentions on major UK forums AVForums & Digital Spy. Ezekial 9 (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
    • These arguments are generally considered to be of little value, as there is a Notability guideline, which is specifically crafted to reflect community's consensus on appropriateness of topics inclusion. To be worth inclusion the topic should be covered in independent reliable sources in significant depth. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I'm aware of the Notability guideline, but would you be so kind to explain which of the books and other references written and deleted in the article failed the notability criterias? . — Christian Hackbart (talk) 10:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— CHackbart (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
        • If you're asking about these, then definitely all of them. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
          • With all due respect, may i ask why all of them "violate" the Notability, because honestly i don't get it. Each source mentions the application and with more than a sentence. They all have at least one complete chapter about the software (can be verified by the available google exzerpts) — Christian Hackbart (talk) 21:06, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep: As an independent user of the application I vote for keeping the article on DVBViewer. In my opinion it's exactly as notable as many other applications that have an article (e.g. ProgDVB, MediaPortal, XBMC or even Windows Media Center). Some applications listed in Template:Home theater PC (application software) along with DVBViewer I never heard of at all! DVBViewer is widely popular throughout the net as already stated before (see also popular German sources , ) and was cited many times in printed computer magazines (don't have a link/issue at hand right now, but I clearly remember for example an article in German magazine "PC Magazin" - now part of Magnus group - regarding the cutting edge performance of DVBViewer regarding playback of full-HD material, long before competitors were able to achieve it). There are even some scientific publications including DVBViewer to investigate various properties of streaming TV over network connections: , .
  Finally I'd recommend restoring a version of the article prior to it's initial deletion if this is possible (e.g. as of July 12 (). It was informative while not beeing overly referenced with sources probably not that important for a reader who wants to inform himself about DVBViewer (as it is now after several in my opinion unjustified speedy deletion requests, accusing of promotional and unreferenced content). Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Patrick 1bc0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • OK I see Christian has added an review in english that I think counts as notable from computeractive. There is no doubt a bias towards german usage with the application, so there may be more german reviews out there. I think the fact DVBViewer is used as adapted software for three of the main satellite set top box & TV card manufacturers, i.e. Technisat, Terratec & Technotrend for all their PC products makes it definitely notable in itself:

http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/PC-products/352-76/

http://www.technisat.com/de_DE/Sat-%28DVB-S%29/352-1294131238891/

http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/SkyStar-USB-HD/352-1294131238891-1246563456759/#tab3

http://www.technisat.com/en_XX/SkyStar-S2/352-1294131238891-1246563456789/#tab3

http://ftp.terratec.de/Receiver/TERRATEC_T5_Rev.2/Manuals/TERRATEC_T5_Quick_Guide.pdf

http://www.terratec.net/en/products/driver/produkte_treiber_en_90840.html

http://www.terratec.net/en/products/driver/produkte_treiber_en_91467.html

http://engl.technotrend.eu/2762/PRODUCTS_for_PC.html

click each product, then data sheet, see reference to TT viewer i.e. here

DVBShop confirms TT Viewer is based on DVBViewer here

You can see reviews of these products which include major discussion of DVBViewer or its variants' features on the major site techradar here, also with mentions where they recommend or use the software with other TV card or box reviews (16 articles in total):

http://www.techradar.com/search?searchTerm=dvbviewer&rows=40&articleTerritory=en-gb&articleFrontPage=&articleType=reviews&page=1

in depth discussion of DVBViewer with screenshots here

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-hd-911911/review

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-2-ci-602623/review

it is also mentioned on the Blackgold TV card review:

"For digital TV duties, we used the excellent DVBViewer software. You have to decide between cable (though Virgin Media's channels are encrypted) and terrestrial – owing to that single input you can't connect both simultaneously.

Searching and use is very much dependent on the specific software that you're using. DVBViewer allows you to search a full band, or a specific channel or range. The entire UK UHF spectrum (channels 21-69) was searched in around three-and-a-half minutes."

Pinnacle nanostick

"Also positive is PCTV's decision to adopt BDA drivers, instead of a proprietary one so we were successfully able to partner the capable DVBViewer with the nanoStick T2. "

and many more mentions in the other 12 techradar articles. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Just to add another 2psworth, the english reviews are all UK based, so it is probably true that there is weakness in the US/Canadian market with the software which explains lack of any reviews on North American websites, but in Europe it definitely is well known & notable amongst HTPC users. Ezekial 9 (talk) 12:39, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

All of these are either primary sources, self-published or well below the significant coverage standard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:45, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure the manufacturer's websites are primary sources, but there is no way you can say reviews in Computer Active or Techradar are self published or below standard, the former is a major UK Computer magazine that has been going for 14 years, and the latter is a consolidation of Future Publishing's tech magazine content online which are also widely respected. Ezekial 9 (talk) 13:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Well, actually they are a lot below standard, as they don't allow to distinguish this particular software from generic DVB software. In effect, you can't write any verifiable material in the article, that would neither belong to parent topic nor rely on primary sources. This is the essence of Notability guideline. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have to agree with Dmitrij D. Czarkoff here. The cited reviews in Chip, Heise and ComputerInteractive don't come up to the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT (they basically say the software exists and is not broken). The PC Magazin review Ezekial 9 refers to might, but an actual reference to it would be needed as a source. Notability is not inherited, so that the software is shipped together with other products doesn't help with notability. -- BenTels (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Firstly, I should clarify I have absolutely no commercial connection to this software, I am a UK based user who saw the issue brought up on the forums. I feel you are both wrong on this and are perhaps being slightly anything that is not popular in North America is not notable biased , the Computer Active review clearly goes much further than saying the "software exists and is not broken". It clearly lists the features of the product and specifically says:

"Many such features are way beyond the scope of Windows Media Center, such as the ability to view multiple channels at once using a single tuner card. You can also extend the programs functionality using VBscript."

and

"The latest version includes support for multiple TV tuners and H.264 support, which allows you to watch High Definition TV broadcasts – something Windows Media Center does not yet support."

delivering specific praise for the product:

"Once you’ve configured the software to your liking you will have created a home theatre PC that’s easy to use, looks great and works just the way you want it to."

"Apart from its low cost, one of the most attractive aspects of DVB Viewer Pro is the thriving support forum. Purchasing the software entitles you to free updates and, in cases of severe problems, direct email support from the program’s developer."

In most reviews it is actually quite rare to directly compare to other products within the review. The market for HTPC is still quite small in comparison to the various STBs so the likelihood of a direct HTPC/DVB software shootout is quite small although it may happen. I feel the claim that notably is not inherited is also a bit false, that the software is chosen to be included by so many manufacturers surely is testament to its quality & reliability, and you can see the comments on techradar, which is a major UK website & published magazine, part of Future plc which repeatedly praise DVBViewer itself not just the software included with various cards. Ezekial 9 (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: I have absolutely no commercial connection to this software

Didn't think that you did.

I feel you are both wrong

That's allowed.

anything that is not popular in North

I'm Dutch and live in The Netherlands. But thanks for the thought.

WP:NSOFT has a couple of basic criteria for notability of software. Essentially it's got to be historically significant or has to be covered as a package in schools or has to be covered in multiple independent printed manuals or instruction books, or has to be shown in reviews to be significant in its own field (which means that it has to add something technologically, it has to be new as a category of software or totally innovative in an existing category). I'm assuming the first three are not under consideration, so the question is whether DVBViewer is significant in its field.

"Many such features are way beyond the scope of Windows Media Center, such as the ability to view multiple channels at once using a single tuner card. You can also extend the programs functionality using VBscript."

So it's got more features than another product. And it supports scripting. Like half a dozen other software packages I could mention. How is that significant?

something Windows Media Center does not yet support

Being better at your job than another product is not significant. Doing something nobody else had ever thought of, that would be significant.

"Once you’ve configured the software to your liking you will have created a home theatre PC that’s easy to use, looks great and works just the way you want it to."

"Once you've got it working, it works." True about practically anything. Does not amount to significance.

"Apart from its low cost, one of the most attractive aspects of DVB Viewer Pro is the thriving support forum. Purchasing the software entitles you to free updates and, in cases of severe problems, direct email support from the program’s developer."

Support forum, free updates. Very common business practice, nothing to do with the software itself.

In most reviews it is actually quite rare to directly compare to other products within the review.

Which is perfect from a WP:NSOFT point of view, because being compared to a single product does absolutely nothing for significance. Adding a completely new idea to the entire field is significant.

testament to its quality & reliability

Quality and reliability, check. Neither one does anything for notability. -- BenTels (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel the links I have provided from the UK & others from the German press are perfectly adequate in determining notability. That you are from the Netherlands doesn't necessarily mean you will not jump to the conclusion that because software is not covered to a significant extent in North American websites i.e. CNET et al it is not notable. There is no doubt that free applications, almost by definition attract more supporters, some ideologically driven. I can understand why there might be a systemic bias on Knowledge against commercial software of a similar user base to free applications due to fears over advertising. I really do not think this is a risk here, DVBViewer barely makes any money at all for the creator, only enough to allow them to continue development, and run the wiki & forums, it is not their main employment, most of the 15 euro charge is taken up by German taxes. If DVBViewer were not significant, the article on German wikipedia would have been nominated for deletion, which I don't believe it ever has been. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I feel the links I have in determining notability.

Undoubtedly. But I don't agree with you that they show notability.

That you are over advertising.

So much for an attempt at subtlety. Okay, let's try directness instead: I have responded to your arguments above with reference to the policies of Knowledge and not to locality of the sources. You have absolutely no basis or reason whatsoever to assume a locality-based bias and I don't really appreciate the ad hominem circumstantial attack. Please refer to WP:NSOFT for the basis of my responses and to WP:CIVIL for other matters.

If DVBViewer were not significant, the article on German wikipedia would have been nominated for deletion, which I don't believe it ever has been.

See WP:OTHERLANGS. -- BenTels (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree the sources given on the German webpage aren't the best as to verify notability, I think the UK computer active & techradar links do do this. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have the full PC Magazin article at hand but I found an excerpt here:

  " lief jedoch leider in der Vergangenheit immer noch nicht überall zufriedenstellend stabil, sodass wir Multimedia-Enthusiasten derzeit den kommerziellen, aber mit 15 Euro recht günstigen DVBViewer (www.dvbviewer.com) empfehlen, der vom Funktionsumfang her alle Mitbewerber in den Schatten stellt und sogar schon Unterstützung für viele der neuen HDTV-TV-Karten mit an Bord hat."

  " still wasn't stable enough in all cases in the past, therefore we currently recommend the commercial, but for 15 euro quite low-priced, DVBViewer (www.dvbviewer.com) to the multimedia-enthusiast, which overshadows all competitors by means of it's range of functions and even ships with support for many of the new HDTV TV-cards already."

  (from PC Magazin 03/2007, "Play it again - Multimedia-Konsument", WEKA MEDIA PUBLISHING GmbH)

  The actual article also included a special feature on DVBViewer, maybe somebody else has a copy at hand. Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 14:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)— Patrick 1bc0 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

  • Comment: Did the article just say that DVBViewer has more features than any other competitive product, or did it mention DVBViewer as having added a feature that did not previously exist in TV tuner software? -- BenTels (talk) 21:32, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't believe this 23-word quote (I counted the relevant part) from PC Magazin (that itself tries hard to mimic PC Magazine to get noticed) really undergoes any serious discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:03, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Your comments are almost by definition showing geographical bias now, that a German magazine cannot be a reputable source simply by not being in english and only published in Germany? It is part of a publishing house that covers 9 technology magazines, there are 7 results on their website for DVBViewer, one has a two paragraph review:

http://www.pcgo.de/ratgeber/download-tipps-86459.html

"DVBViewer ist ein erstklassiger Ersatz für die oft schwachbrüstigen Programme, die DVB-Fernseh-Adaptern beiliegen. Die Software eignet sich ::::zum Empfang von Digital-TV via Satellit, Kabel oder DVB-T und lässt auch bei HDTV- und Premiere-Fans keine Wünsche offen. Es speichert ::::Sendungen inklusive mehrerer Ton-Spuren auf der Festplatte. Mithilfe von Plug-ins von der Entwickler-Website steuern Sie die Software über ::::verschiedene Fernbedienungen.

Darüber hinaus überträgt DVBViewer Fernsehsendungen als Streaming an andere Rechner im Netz, in denen keine TV-Karte steckt. Noch ausbaufähig ::::sind die Mediacenter-Funktionen. Immerhin spielt der DVBViewer bereits jetzt Video-DVDs, MP3s und Videodateien ab, gibt MP3s und Internetradio ::::wieder und zeigt Digitalfotos an. Insgesamt ist das Preis/Leistungsverhältnis sehr gut."

Regarding "Did the article just say that DVBViewer has more features than any other competitive product, or did it mention DVBViewer as having added a feature that did not previously exist in TV tuner software?" , it implies clearly that mediaportal is not stable, whereas DVBViewer is. Ezekial 9 (talk) 22:21, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not geographical bias. It is significance and reliability bias. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Where is there any proof that that magazine is unreliable? Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• PC Magazin is a German sister publication of PC Magazine, in the same standing as PC Magazine. No problem with that as a source.

Regarding quote above, that's still just listing features -- it's not making any claims beyond just being a better implementation than the competition. And Mediaportal being unstable does not make a competitive product notable. -- BenTels (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Proof link for that? They have different publishers and don't link to each other, as I can see. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll check later. Either way, it makes no difference with regards to WP:NSOFT and the quote above.-- BenTels (talk) 02:39, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

For the record, PC Magazin is a reliable source on its own, but it is not related to PC Magazine, and indeed the mention of topic is nowhere close "significant". — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Would you classify this source as suitable to contribute to the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT? — Digital Digest - DVBViewer

Especially the section "Which features make it unique? -- DVBViewer contains functions which are groundbreaking : It was the first program with a so called DesktopTV mode and in its category the only product which offers AC-3 and Timeshifting features. It is even possible to handle more than one DVB device at the same time. Further on the multimedia skills of the DVBViewer do not need to hide behind other mediacenters. From playing multimedia contents up to receiving RSS newsfeeds, weather data, everything is possible." seems relevant — Patrick 1bc0 (talk) 01:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like self-published. No signs of editorial overlook along with clear signs of filing a form by someone who doesn't know the way the end result looks like. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that site does look self published. Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep The longs discussions above about the merits or distinctive features of the products are totally irrelevant to notability. The evidence seems to be that it has been the subject of significant editorial views and other third party discussion, and that's the criterion. DGG ( talk ) 23:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment: It's not irrelevant under WP:NSOFT. WP:NSOFT has a significance requirement, to prevent run-of-the-mill software being notable simply because of reviews in magazines like PC Magazine and PC World which review products based on the fact that they exist. -- BenTels (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • This discussion is not about features, it's about significance of coverage. Each source with at least any signs of independence mentions the subject in less then one sentence, which flies in face of WP:GNG. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• That is simply not true, it was reviewed in Computeractive which is the UK's highest selling personal computer magazine here. I also feel that the techradar links do establish notability even though here DVBViewer is reviewed as part of a bundle of hardware & software or as test software:

http://www.techradar.com/search?searchTerm=dvbviewer&rows=40&articleTerritory=en-gb&articleFrontPage=&articleType=reviews&page=1

in depth discussion of DVBViewer with screenshots here

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/technisat-skystar-usb-hd-911911/review

Ezekial 9 (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I missed the Computeractive's review indeed. We have one significant mention in reliable sources of multiple required.

About techradar: it seems you misunderstand the connotation of WP:N — we take reliable sources' judgment on notability of the subject. The very same idea is expressed in more detail in Knowledge:Notability (software) § Inclusion. In techradar's case the mention of the software is not the decision of the source — they just reviewed the hardware, and this software happened to be supplied with it. No sources' judgment we can relay on. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:50, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

But they did not "just review the hardware", they specifically & in detail list the features of the included DVBViewer version, even comparing it with the full commercial version, and also praise & recommend DVBViewer in other hardware reviews where it is not included. Ezekial 9 (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

They specifically in detail reviewed whatever came in package, as they do in all other reviews. This fact doesn't make software bundled with hardware inherently notable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

I have looked at the articles on notability and I can't see anywhere where it specifically says discussion of a product must be discounted as evidence of notability if it is reviewed as part of a package. The reality of this type of software is the most users of it use the bundled version (probably the same applies to Power DVD etc.). Ezekial 9 (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

See the explanation right above. The purpose of establishing notability — determining whether the subject was found worth significant mention — can't be reach. In fact, the techradars' review demonstrate that techradar found this software not worth separate mention and regards it as firmware. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:49, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Firmware is a completely different case, this is settings that are embedded into a chip on the device, this is completely non comparable, DVBViewer is software that has to be installed via a CD, the fact that 3 major manufacturers of PC TV cards & boxes chose to supply it with their product denote notability. Techradar describe DVBViewer on devices that it was not included with:

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/black-gold-bgt3620-943596/review

"For digital TV duties, we used the excellent DVBViewer software. You have to decide between cable (though Virgin Media's channels are encrypted) and terrestrial – owing to that single input you can't connect both simultaneously.

Searching and use is very much dependent on the specific software that you're using. DVBViewer allows you to search a full band, or a specific channel or range. The entire UK UHF spectrum (channels 21-69) was searched in around three-and-a-half minutes."

http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/pc-components/tv-tuner-cards/pinnacle-pctv-nanostick-t2-290e-929011/review

"Also positive is PCTV's decision to adopt BDA drivers, instead of a proprietary one so we were successfully able to partner the capable DVBViewer with the nanoStick T2. "

Ezekial 9 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

In addition to those being trivial coverage or mentions, the very nature of the relationship of being "bundled"/"included" by some other manufacturer or vendor would fail the primary test of being "independent" of the subject... nor would the subject "inherit" notability due to being so closely associated. This includes product descriptions, bundle publications, manuals or any material written by sources closely associated with it. A case could be also made its nothing more than a press kit or advertising, marketing materials or similar work written on behalf of the subject.--Hu12 (talk) 16:12, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I think you are just nitpicking because you didn't see these sources that have now been presented when you first nominated, and would move the goalposts however many sources were provided. Ezekial 9 (talk) 17:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)— Ezekial 9 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

This case seems to be an attempt to impose one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community. The "Independence of sources" is NOT nitpicking and applies to products. see Knowledge:Notability#General_notability_guideline, which states;

• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. ..."

Footnote reads; "Works produced by the subject, or those with a strong connection to them, are unlikely to be strong evidence of notability. See also: Knowledge:Conflict of interest for handling of such situations."

--Hu12 (talk) 18:28, 16 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:02, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

CyberSafe (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This article is not about the specific subject, and gives no evidence of notability for it; rather, the contents is a general article on computer encryption., of which we have adequate coverage.

We've usually regarded this sort of writing as promotional, because its only real purpose is to introduce an otherwise unsupported article under the name of the product DGG ( talk ) 21:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete: Agree with DGG, this "article" is a WP:ADVERT. While the concept of a digital vault does exist, this article is just trying to push one implementation. -- BenTels (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Weak Keep: Disagree. There's a lot of good research here. I think this article should be improved, not deleted. Limemine (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: The article has a great references section and is well-written. The article should stay. Unhmba (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2012 (UTC)Unhmba (talk) 02:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: Keep. Agree with Limemine, this article is well-researched and factual but needs improvement. It meets notability req because of interest from academic, legal, and investment communities. Bioengineer+attorney (talk) 21:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bioengineer+attorney (talk • contribs) Bioengineer+attorney (talk) 02:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - There does seem to be some fluff in the article about encryption, but there are plenty of independent and reliable sources out there for it. I was on the fence but did a search through HighBeam and found these: Computergram International, American Banker, [American Banker - CyberSafe Raises $21 Million, Network World, Software Magazine, Seattle Post, New Age Media. There were 152 hits (I am sure that some of them are not related to this article but the majority appear to be related). user:MalcomMarcomb11376
• Keep Appears informative and soundly written. I would say off to a good start, maybe trim some fat, but well with-in the WP:GNG guidelines --‎Jetijonez 21:54, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete It is an advert, with copy primarily based on the generalized subject rather than the actual topic, to pad up the sources. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete as promotional and lacking notability. Appears that this article was created only to showcase a company logo and website. CyberSafe software is only mentioned a couple of times in the article; the rest of the article is accurate information about data encryption in general, not about CyberSafe software. Other than primary sources, the citations don't mention CyberSafe software and definitely don't support its notability. MalcomMarcomb, every link you provided is about CyberSafe Corporation of Issaquah, WA; that is NOT the same as CyberSafe Ltd headquartered in Longford, Middlesex, UK with an office in Atlanta, GA, USA, the company distributing the software that is and the company whose logo and web site are featured in this artice. DocTree (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per Doctree's compelling analysis. Logical Cowboy (talk) 00:23, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was Keep with no proper consensus on how to possibly rename it. — ΛΧΣ21™ 03:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan's role in the War on Terror (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This reminds me of some high school student's essay for class, and not even a well-written essay at that. Knowledge exists to inform, not to publish people's essays. I spotted at least one instance of weasel words as well. Honestly, I'm shocked the article didn't get nominated sooner... ChromaNebula (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep This is a highly notable topic. Pakistan's role in the War on Terror has been discussed pretty extensively, as it's not a simple one. There's bin Laden, just to name one very important element of the subject. Check the Google results—main, news, and Scholar—for many such examples (make sure you remove the quotation marks). Rename to something more concise, like Pakistan in the War on Terror and improve. --BDD (talk) 21:09, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Highly notable, though not in the way the article has been written. A rename to Pakistan's double dealing in the war on terror would be closer to the mark :o) Darkness Shines (talk) 21:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Agree very notable subject, numerous sources present. The article may need clean up but it certainly does not deserve to be deleted.--DBigXray 23:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - a highly notable topic. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - per WP:NOTABILITY Mrt3366 08:10, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Reluctant Keep Probably a valid topic, but awful in its current state and, as with most such articles, unlikely to ever avoid being essay-like and a magnet for POV contributions, with a superficial neutrality only being maintained via clumsy "on the one hand .. on the other" constructions. As noted, title change might also be needed, either to "Pakistan and the .." or "Pakistan in the .." N-HH talk/edits 11:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Nominator comment: The article meets WP:NOTABILITY, but not WP:NOTESSAY. The question is which should take precedence. That's why I brought it to AfD--because there needs to be a discussion about which is more important. --ChromaNebula (talk) 17:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• The article has been tagged as essay-like for over two years, but this is not grounds for deletion for a topic that meets WP:GNG, as you concede this does. You could argue for WP:TNT. But this isn't "Geography and early childhood education" or "Online health treatment and doctors in bangladesh." Those were full of original research and synthesis; this one merely has an inappropriate tone, which is almost always better fixed by editing than by deletion (cf. WP:PRESERVE). --BDD (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep: notable topic, AFD is not for clean up... try discussing on talk page. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Redirect to War in North-West Pakistan which is essentially the same thing. Darkness Shines (talk) 14:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• While it could be improved greatly, it is basically a notable and verifiable topic. Keep. Bearian (talk) 21:02, 14 August 2012 (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. WP:SNOW The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:23, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

List of British towns with no railway station (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unsourced. "No railway station" doesn't seem easy to verify. What purpose does a list of things that don't exist serve? The list can't even make up its own mind, as seen by text such as "On the other hand, it may be argued that inclusion in a list of non-rail linked towns should be based not on a technical or administrative link but on the town's being an identifiable distinct community lacking proximity or practical accessibility to a railway station." It seems there's no specific definition, thus making the list inherently flawed. Ten Pound Hammer • 19:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete it's an indiscriminate list and there's no demonstration of notability. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete If it was something specific such as a list of closed stations then I may have been tempted to vote keep, but as an arbitrary list of towns which may or may not warrant inclusion it serves no purpose. Periglio (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, unless significantly cleaned up and sourced. During the silly season, there are often claims that such-a-town is "the largest town without a railway station", but I've never seen lists of more than three to five. The inclusion criteria are vague, anyway: Leigh for example, has no station, but there are several within the same local authority, just in different towns. So newspaper X lists Leigh, but newspaper Y doesn't, because they only check to local authority level. The article has this list of Non Rail Towns, but again, the criteria are curious: under W, for example, we find that Warley, Essex is 0.5 miles from Brentwood railway station, yet is a "non rail town". --Redrose64 (talk) 23:22, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - it is an indiscriminate list of information. This also does not have any sources, and possibly fails to meet the general notability guidelines. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:34, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per the aove commenters.--VikÞor | Talk 02:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - I see Oldham Mumps Metrolink station is included in the list. Ning-ning (talk) 08:32, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete We don't list articles on qualities they don't have. Why not List of British towns that do not have an airport or List of American actors who have never won an Oscar. Lugnuts (talk) 08:46, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - as I have noted on the talk page, the inclusion criteria is vague. "No railway station". London Underground, Metrolink (although tram) and the Epping Ongar Railway are all types of railways, for example, and many of the places are served by them. Simply south...... flapping wings into buildings for just 6 years 12:33, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Operation Tight Screw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTNEWS that and the fact that Pakistan has been saying this was going to happen since 2010 and it still does not seem to be happening makes me think it never will. Better off in Pakistan's role in the War on Terror until such a time as there are enough sources to fill an article out. Darkness Shines (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep good amount of third-party reliable press. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Google news has but one hit for this, and that is the Wiki article. There are only 1,610 hits on Google itself, and most seem to be just the same story based on the press release. Were are the sources to build an article on? Darkness Shines (talk) 21:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:42, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG & WP:NOTNEWS. Mrt3366 08:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete agree with nom. It hasnt occured so far and as the NATO troops are leaving, its highly unlikely to happen ever. Even if it happen it is too early to say it will be of this name. --DBigXray 10:28, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - WP:PAK regular - coverage in RS is present and operation at this level is generally notable. We should wait for now to see if the operation gets more coverage... quick deletion without allowing it to mature is not really constructive. --lTopGunl (talk) 09:27, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You want to keep it on the off chance something might happen? WP:CRYSTAL Darkness Shines (talk) 12:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Fails NOTNEWS, plus the article doesn't assert any notability. Electric Catfish 15:05, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep the topic is notable per WP:GNG. This operation has a lengthy history. The article's subject is not limited to this title ("Operation Tight Screw") only, it should include all the information related to the military operation that is being planned by Pakistan for some years and US and NATO members are putting pressure on Government of Pakistan for this. And this info is found abundantly in reliable sources. The only new thing is the operation being given a name and time frame which is covered by news reports. I will surely like to expand it myself, if given sometime. --SMS 05:33, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. The article still desperatly needs more and better sources, but notability has been established and beyond that it's cleanup. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Craig Larman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Lacks reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability as required by WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Googling turns up nothing except WP:PRIMARY sources, which are unhelpful at establishing notability. The subject has written several books but falls far short of the achievements contemplated by WP:AUTHOR. Realistically, the article offers no reason why this individual should be notable. Msnicki (talk) 14:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:BLPDELETE. See also related discussion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:19, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - Seems to easily meet WP:ACADEMIC #1 (maybe #4 and/or #7 also). Just from "Scholar" links in the AFD Nom, his book Applying UML and Patterns: An Introduction to Object-Oriented Analysis and Design and Iterative Development (3rd Edition), for example, is listed as cited 75 times by other published academic works. Of the 7 books cited in the article, 6 of them are in the Library of Congress Catalog http://catalog.loc.gov/vwebv/search?searchArg=craig+larman&searchCode=GKEY%5E*&searchType=0&recCount=100 Celtechm (talk) 07:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Please, cite reliable sources supporting the claim, as required per Knowledge:Notability (academics) § General notes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Response I guess the basis of my argument is in the following passage from WP:BIO: "Many scientists, researchers, philosophers and other scholars (collectively referred to as "academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." My interpretation is that primary sources are enough, so long as they adequately establish that "The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors" per WP:AUTHOR. I believe both apply here. Celtechm (talk) 18:20, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
      • There is no conflict between WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC: there is no requirement for biography coverage, but reliable sources should demonstrate the recognition. As you apply to recognition as a reason to keep this article, my question steel stands: what sources acknowledge this recognition? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Agree... Not a conflict at all... WP:BIO simply provides additional guidance to apply to BLPs for "academics" that is not also given in WP:ACADEMIC (Namely that primary sources can be used to prove notability for Academics). Examples of such recognition are easy to find if you bother to look for them. Example is Google Scholar info on 3rd book listed in article "Applying UML and Patterns:..." lists 2352 citations of this work.. 75 of the citing works are listed here: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1044919 (Use the "Cited By" tab) I see opportunities to provide similar data for several of his other books that each have 500+, 300+ and etc citations. Take a minute to look and see for yourself. So... In Summary... Even if we only count the 75 citing works I have specifically named here (of potentially 2300+) for the one book (of his 7 or more known books), I think we can establish that his work is "notably influential in the world of ideas" per WP BIO and proves notability. Celtechm (talk) 01:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
          • Where did you get this idea? WP:BIO clearly states otherwise: "primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject." The additional criteria you cite are specifically attributed as not guaranteeing inclusion. Ultimately WP:BIO § Failing basic criteria but meeting additional criteria states that in such situation separate article is inappropriate. Also note, that the fact that a person is cited doesn't mean that he is "notably influential in the world of ideas"; this approach stretches the guidelines by too far — any claim of such influence should be verifiable to reliable sources, not to the numbers of citations in other works. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
            • See my first Response. Passage = ..."academics" for convenience) are notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." I think this is very clearly written as an exception to the "normal" guideline that you are quoting. Feel free to disagree. Celtechm (talk) 01:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
              • Are you sure you've noticed the "their biographies" part of the sentence? Biography is only a subset of person's coverage, along with recognition, which is the basis of additional criteria of WP:BIO and WP:ACADEMIC. That is probably the reason that both guidelines insist on insufficiency of primary sources for the purpose of determining notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
                • Frankly, I don't follow your logic. What that passage means to me is that Wikipedians don't write a very good manual. I've explained my interpretation extensively. If you believe the words "their biographies" is somehow a critical factor that drastically alters the meaning of the guideline, please explain your reasoning. Convince me. Celtechm (talk) 06:23, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
                  • I'm not sure whether there is something to explain. WP:BIO states "Basic" and "Additional criteria", clearly stating meeting "Basic criteria" (subject must be covered in multiple published independent reliable sources, describing him/her in depth) is necessary but insufficient for passing guideline. "Additional criteria" are attributed as unnecessary and insufficient; about academics they say that academic's biographical trivia may be covered with primary sources, which doesn't interfere with the "Basic criteria". That is explained in detail within WP:ACADEMIC: "It is possible for an academic to be notable according to this standard, and yet not be an appropriate topic for coverage in Knowledge because of a lack of reliable, independent sources on the subject. Every topic on Knowledge must be one for which sources comply with Knowledge:Verifiability. However, for the routine uncontroversial details of a career, official institutional and professional sources are accepted as sourcing for those details." That is: in the lack of reliable, independent sources the subject should not be included. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Speedy keep - Yikes, I did a quick Google Scholar on "Craig Larman" and his first single-authored book is cited by 2352. Easily meets WP:ACADEMIC -- which does not require coverage of the individual, but cites / discussions / uses of their work. That's what the the first test means: "1. The person's research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed, as demonstrated by independent reliable sources." and if you look at all the other tests you will see that this is a common thread. We don't look for mainstream or secondary resources covering the individual -- that's quite rare, since it's much more important that consumers of media receive adequate information about footballers, entertainers, celebrities and occasionally politicians if sufficiently scandalous. The gist of WP:ACADEMIC is that scientists and academics are notable through their research. --Lquilter (talk) 19:10, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment: Regardless of the above !votes, in order for this article to be kept there must be reliable sources in the article as it is a BLP. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 16 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

QPHP Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think it has enough notability. –ebraminio 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found nothing to question nominator's concern. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Nothing pops up in the way of significant sources, so this framework does not seem to meet WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Even if there are sources available, meeting the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT seems doubtable given the feature list. -- BenTels (talk) 00:31, 11 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

AiryMVC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Another PHP framework, without any reference. I don't think it is notable. –ebraminio 12:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no coverage in reliable sources. It is a clone of TinyMVC Framework, equally non-notable software. Search on DuckDuckGo is particularly enlightening. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of reliable sources causes a seeming fail of WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Nature of the software makes meeting the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT unlikely. -- BenTels (talk) 00:35, 11 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

TinyMVC Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Another PHP framework article without any reference. I don't think it has enough notability. –ebraminio 12:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found no sources to argue for subject's notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:22, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of reliable sources causes a seeming fail of WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Nature of the software makes meeting the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT unlikely. -- BenTels (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SWiZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Very stub article, not edited since 2008. I don't think it has enough notability. –ebraminio 12:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. BTW, the home site of this software seems to be swizframework.org, not www.swiz.cz from the article. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of sources seems to render this framework not notable with regards to WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 00:39, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:54, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

CJAX Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think this framework have enough notability, the article can not show that at least. –ebraminio 12:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no indication of notability. In fact the combination of (1) wrong name (should be CJAX) and (2) unintelligible yet promotional text makes this article doomed: no good content to move. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete: sources do not meet WP:RS. The article is all over the place structurally. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 19:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Seems not notable due to lack of sources. Given the topic, unlikely ever to meet the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 00:42, 11 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:06, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

2011–12 Boston United F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Cut-off point for individual articles on club seasons in England is the Conference National. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Del_♉sion23 (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - not only below the traditional cut-off point at WP:FOOTY, but also completely unreferenced and fails GNG. GiantSnowman 09:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - fails WP:NSEASONS. Mentoz86 (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Context Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think this framework is notable. –ebraminio 08:16, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no indication of notability. That said, I could probably miss some sources due to the fairly generic name, "context-sensitive" buzzword and consequent amount of search results. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: No reliable sources in evidence, so this article seems to fail WP:NSOFT and WP:GNG. Given the nature of the framework (yet another component-based web MVC framework), it is not likely to meet the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT. -- BenTels (talk) 00:45, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

AppFuse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think AppFuse is notable software. At least the article can not show that. –ebraminio 08:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Borderline keep: the article contains Java.net article and article on DeveloperWorks, and there was a talk on O'Reilly's event. All of those are by Matt Raible (author of AppFuse), but they undergone editorial oversight. Particularly DW's article is convincing as it is long, deep in coverage and approved by IBM. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak Keep: per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. -- BenTels (talk) 12:44, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 18:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Week keep there is some press (notably from The Register but the article is almost certainly too long. Would need some significant rewriting to be up to standards. MountainMan11 (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:43, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Movicon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. –ebraminio 07:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no independent reliable sources. In effect, my search hints that there is another product under this name, and it is more notable (not sure whether notable enough for article, though). WP:MILL and WP:NOT also apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 18:12, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Software does not seem notable and is not likely to meet the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT.

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

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

The result was keep. No prejudice towards renaming. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:31, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Scripture in Song (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

• Delete. Non-notable record company. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree, Delete. Mattlore (talk) 12:21, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Hold fire - they are possibly more notable than the article gives them credit - I'll do some digging as I note it has had only one editor, and that some years ago, NealeFamily (talk) 01:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Seem to have been notable in the NZ Christian music scene in the 1970's according to a comment in "Te Ara". The references I have found are generally Christian sites and global and not just New Zealand, but how appropriate they are for references I am unsure. Needs someone with expertise in that field to advise. The article title may be wrong, and might be better as a biography NealeFamily (talk) 07:48, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. NealeFamily (talk) 08:06, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. Tremendously influential in contemporary Christian music. A quick look at Gnews came up with this quote, "the 'Scripture in Song' movement... has influenced and in many ways shaped what the Christian world knows as contemporary worship." StAnselm (talk) 01:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. The problem is that there is nothing in the article that indicates this level of significance, nor are there any strong references to support the article. Would need a decent amount of research and editing to bring it up to speed. NealeFamily (talk) 05:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment. If nothing else, the songbooks alone a notable as hymnals - used by thousands of churches, and probably still used by many. StAnselm (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment. Would perhaps it be better to transform this into an article on the Scripture in Song movement instead of just the record company? Mattlore (talk) 03:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• From the various sites it would seem to descibe either songs or type of songs that Dave and Dale Garrett wrote and sang. There are various records and song books with those titles, so I don't think they are a movement as such.NealeFamily (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 18:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep -- This is currently a poor article, but I consider that this (at least) was a significant element in Evangelical Christian worship music in the 1970s. It was more than a record company: publishing song books was equally important, though my memory is more of orally transmitted songs, for example in Youth with a Mission. The lack of current notability makes no difference if it was notable once. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:16, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep. A very notable influence on Christian music. Some reliable references:
  • : "... one of the primary catalysts of this contemporary incarnation of biblical text worship music in the 1970's charismatic movements"
  • "... had a worldwide influence on the worship of the charismatic movement"
  • "... had an enormous influence on Pentecostal worship in Australia and many other places" -- 202.124.72.37 (talk) 12:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• CommentThe preceding comments suggest an article about the movement should exist and generally don't address the notability of the compampy (which is what the article is currently about). As for a Scripture in Song movement article it seem to me that it is not quite notable enogh to justify its own article. A note in the Charismatic Movement article may be sufficient? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:04, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if there was a "movement" as such. The sources listed above specifically refer to the company, its two founders, and the songbooks/recordings it produced. The company is clearly notable, based on its past activities, and its influence in fact extended well beyond charismatic circles, as Peterkingiron notes. -- 202.124.75.177 (talk) 01:10, 16 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:44, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Insight Debugger (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Unreferenced since 2007; a search for sources brings nothing substantial (note that this software is unrelated to a GDB-based debugger with the same name, which probably does not even run on DOS). Keφr (talk) 07:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 08:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: I found virtually nothing about this debugger. Given that this project does not predate internet, I would argue that the lack of online sources on this development tool proves the lack of notability. That said, this software is distributed with FreeDOS, so I would not oppose selective merge if someone more knowledgeable of topic considers that appropriate. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 18:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• delete only passing mentions in gnews. Fails WP:GNG. LibStar (talk) 10:14, 15 August 2012 (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 Viz Media. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Neon Alley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Per WP:CRYSTAL. There's no reason to think that this would be notable after it came out. Maybe it will be and it can have an article then. Not now, though. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 00:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game-related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) Northamerica1000 00:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

If what the article says is true and this service is being created by VIZ Media another possibility could be to add a small section on the VIZ article are redirect this there.--70.49.81.140 (talk) 02:01, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect or merge to Viz Media. Not notable but there may be some salvageable content. – Allen4names (IPv6 contributions) 07:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Merge to Viz Media. A service that has yet to be launched, which has not yet received enough coverage, or mere announcements, probably shouldn't have its own article just yet. If after Neon Alley has been launched and more reliable sources cover it, then would be the time to spin off an article. But not now. Narutolovehinata5 11:55, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

*Comment As nominator, I think a merge is appropriate, and will withdraw my nomination in favor of that outcome. It didn't occur to me last night, for whatever reason.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete  The only thing here is a press release of a product announcement, Knowledge is WP:NOT a bulletin board of product announcements.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:03, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment  Striking !vote.  Is this nomination withdrawn?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:08, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
• Comment I don't think the article should exist, but I would support a merge. If that means withdrawing it, I will, but I don't think I can !vote merge as nominator.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:17, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:NOT says, "Knowledge is not a collection of product announcements and rumors." which would seem to apply to content, but later a conflicting sentence says that such topics can be merged to preserve the content.  There is the issue of the WP:DUE prominence of the material in the target article, and also the notability of the announcement itself.  I think we can agree that the world at large has no interest in the announcement as an announcement, i.e., The announcement of Neon Alley by Viz Media.  A further sentence at WP:NOT says, "Speculation and rumor, even from reliable sources, are not appropriate encyclopedic content."  IMO, it is impractical to write about this topic even in the context of Viz Media without having material that is both ephemeral and promotional.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:00, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, you're right, and I was right in nominating. I'll let it run. Editors can request userfication if the outcome is delete and see whether or not it'll stand in the Viz Alley article. Sorry to waffle.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I'm unstriking my delete !vote.  Also, a related discussion has arisen at WT:NOT, FYI.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Mr. Stradivarius 17:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Viz Media, a merge is not good as per User:Unscintillating as the info is promoting, but since this is a possible search term for Viz my opinion is to make a redirect out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 12 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Death of Carole Waugh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

A murder that has received some passing coverage in UK media, as murders often do but especially because of some tabloid speculation about the victim's private life. No indication - or likelihood -that this will have any enduring or substantial notability. As WP:EVENT says - "a burst or spike of news reports does not automatically make an incident notable. Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article" N-HH talk/edits 17:39, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:45, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. BabbaQ (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - pure speculations of future non-notability by nominator. Passes WP:GNG. And passes WP:PERSISTENCE per persistent coverage by multiple media as shown by the very good sourcing in the article.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it currently has a grand total of four sources, reaching as far as seven days apart. I'm sure there are more and will be more as any prosecutions over the death take place, but I think you'll need to explain in a bit more detail how that counts as "persistent coverage" or how it amounts to anything other than "a burst or spike of news reports .. published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion". N-HH talk/edits 17:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

There are actually lots more stretching back some weeks. In starting the article I chose the sources from which I could get an overview of the case, my plan being to add more later as it's still a work-in-progress. In hindsight, I should perhaps have added a {{underconstruction}} to it until I could do more work on it, but not to worry. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I dont know if you have actually read the article. But a simple checking of the article proves that coverage has been persistent from May to August and just the other day there were news on Carole Waugh on Sky News website and news channel. Persistent coverage has been asserted. Paul has done a great work with the article so far overall.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

GA or even FA status for this article in the future is likely with Pauls good work.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Also continued day to day updates it seems by media. So this case has been far beyond a day/week coverage crime case.--BabbaQ (talk) 20:57, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I created this article because of the unusual circumstances surrounding the death, which appears to involve several people and a complex set of circumstances. The depth of coverage stretches beyond that usually devoted to a murder case - indeed, many get no more than a few column inches, and it's getting equal coverage from both the tabloid and quality press. There is also at least one International reference. Whether it has a lasting effect on society is something that it's far too early to speculate about, but I can see from reading what's available so far there will be much more coverage of this story, and I've personally no doubt that eventually I could get this up to GA or even FA status. Paul MacDermott (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure there will be more coverage, which I acknowledged already. But the point is, will that simply be fairly bog-standard - forgive the phrase - rolling mentions of an ongoing disappearance and later murder investigation and then regular court reporting of the subsequent trial, possibly with a bit more detail becaise of any sensationalist aspects? Does every death or murder, or even personal injury or assault, that gets more than a day's worth of reporting, for the event itself and then any subsequent trial, get a WP entry, simply because it "has sources"? You can plausibly make a case for a death that has led the headlines for several days (although personally I think that still fails not news, without any lasting impact or consequence for society as a whole), but this one really, really has not even done that. And no we don't know that it will not have a lasting effect - but we don't know that it will. The "speculation" point applies just as much to any "Keep" arguments as to any "Delete" ones; in fact it applies more strongly. N-HH talk/edits 08:38, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

The amount of coverage (which continues today with news of another arrest in connection with the case: see here) means WP:NOTNEWS has been satisfied, I would say. There has been a steady stream of coverage concerning this case now since at least the penultimate week of July (see this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this and this for examples), and but for the Olympics there may well have been much more. I know this sounds like a cliche now, as it seems to get pointed out in every afd debate of this type, but there are something like 700 murders committed annually in the UK, and the vast majority don't receive this level of coverage. One could argue it's missing white woman syndrome or some kind of sensationalist fascination with her private life, but the fact that many of the quality dailies (The Independent, The Guardian, The Daily Telegraph) have picked up the story adds weight to the theory that this is not just a media frenzy. Paul MacDermott (talk) 09:30, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

More outside UK interest here from The Irish Independent. Paul MacDermott (talk) 14:58, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Look, flagging up another newspaper article, as noted, really doesn't make much difference either way. We know there is media coverage and that there will be more. And, whether the coverage is in the FT or the Star makes little difference really. Newspapers cover murders on which there is any angle, and they tend to do it as a group (not least because they take much of their copy from PA). Even the "quality" press is secretly fond of a little scandal and sensation. They then cover and follow up developments in such cases as and when they happen, which may be quite frequently. They do the same for love affairs, celebrity pregnancies, violent assaults and injuries/hospitalisations (see for example people who get injured abroad and are stuck there). The Mail website right now, for example, is littered with such stories, including at least four or five other "current" murder cases. Several of those will also be covered in the Guardian. Do these all need WP articles? Is there a policy mandating their inclusion that overrides WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT? I remain baffled by the need some people see for WP to include specific items about a single random event on the basis that there has been a couple of, or even quite a few, newspaper reports on said event and any immediately following developments. I can just about see the argument for an article when the case in question dominates news coverage during its moment in the sun (see Tia Sharp), on the "captured the media/public imagination in the summer of 2012" thesis. But even that's pretty weak, and no, definitely not this one. I can imagine, although I have not checked, that Tia Sharp has led most news bulletins and been on the front pages of most papers for several successive days. This story very definitely has not, nothing like it. N-HH talk/edits 15:02, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your Tia Sharp argument could be in danger of falling into the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS category, I fear. The truth is this has received over and above the coverage required for WP:NOTNEWS and WP:EVENT, and there is some international coverage, which many UK based murders do not get. WP:PERSISTENCE is also satisfied because we have several weeks of coverage in multiple media. I really fail to understand why we need to have this argument every time someone creates an article about a notable murder case. Perhaps it's time to set out some very specific guidelines on this issue, or it will keep happening. Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not otherstuff, because I'm contrasting two cases to illustrate where the boundary might lie - I'm not saying we do or don't have X therefore we should or shouldn't have Y. Also, as I've said here and elsewhere, I don't think the persistence criteria is met - we have media coverage spread over weeks because developments occur in the case and the media report them as and when they happen. They're still reporting on the same event, or series of sub-events, on and off, in proximity to them. It's basic news reporting, it's not some notable thing being referred to or analysed retrospectively. I agree though some clearer guidelines are needed to avoid endless such debates - I think most of these "Murder of .." entries on WP are daft, just as "Assault of ...", "Kidnapping of ...", "Marriage of ..." would be, but I acknowledge there is a fundamental divide of principle here and plenty of people create them, like them and defend them, often simply on the basis of the cases having been reported contemporaneously in newspapers. For me, neither common sense nor general notability policy as it stands mandate inclusion on that rationale alone. As I say, with Tia Sharp, a case can be made (although I disagree with it) on the basis of a case being front-page news for successive days for an extended period while it is current, and that any specific guidelines could be worded to instruct us to take account of that kind of thing; on this case, which pops up on the inside pages from time to time, it seems a slam-dunk that it doesn't merit inclusion in an encyclopedia, and that any new guidelines should clarify that. Anyway, I've said far too much already - as you say, much of this belongs in another venue. N-HH talk/edits 16:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I see your argument for this article vs the Tia Sharp case, though I'm not sure it couldn't be classed as otherstuff. It could be seen as a case of "topic a isn't as important as topic b so topic a should go". The media coverage for both is significant so each should be judged on its own merits. I think many of these articles appear because of a genuine belief in their notability, and there's no doubt crimes of this nature both fascinate and appall in equal measures. But enough of my ramblings as that's really for another place. Below are some of the guidelines I believe this meets:

WP EVENT

• An event must receive significant or in-depth coverage to be notable.
• Notable events usually receive coverage beyond a relatively short news cycle.
• Significant national or international coverage is usually expected for an event to be notable.

• The article meets all three of these criteria.

WP NOTNEWS

• Not written as a piece of journalism, or with a "breaking news" slant. As WP:NOTNEWS has a signpost referring users to WP:EVENT, then I feel the latter is the important aspect to consider here.

WP PERSISTENCE

• Passes this because of the sheer volume of coverage over several weeks, far beyond the usual "news spike". Paul MacDermott (talk) 17:08, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

WP N/CA

• The disappearance of a person would fall under this guideline if law enforcement agencies deemed it likely to have been caused by criminal conduct, regardless of whether a perpetrator is identified or charged.

• Definitely passes this since detectives concluded criminal activities were afoot several weeks ago, and now have a body and suspects. Paul MacDermott (talk) 11:42, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're misquoting and misreading that part of the guideline as if it says any disappearance suspected of being due to a criminal act should have a WP entry. Of course it doesn't say, or mean, that. What it says, more fully and with my emphasis, is: "As with other events, media coverage can confer notability on a high-profile criminal act, provided such coverage meets the above guidelines". And of course, I dispute that this case meets the bar set by the other parts of the guidelines, which have also been selectively quoted above, by relying on the section sub-headings rather than than the actual text content. The effect of that is to simply highlight what characteristics those guidelines suggest would normally be seen with notable events - and through that, argue that these are the criteria for notability; and that because this case appears to meet them, the criteria are satisfied. Confusing basic characteristics or the bare minimum with the threshold is one of the most basic logical fallacies going. Noted actors will usually have appeared in several successful films - not everyone who has appeared in several succesful films is a noted actor; some are extras. N-HH talk/edits 12:39, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Not sure I quite see the the point of the film analogy, but never mind. Basically though, to summarise your point, you're saying that guideline doesn't apply. Even if that is the case (and incidentally I picked it up from a debate that's going in parallel with this one where it was quoted in much the same way) there are plenty of others listed above that do. And actually, I did fully read the guidelines. :) Paul MacDermott (talk) 16:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Amd more ongoing coverage today. Paul MacDermott (talk) 23:05, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course there's more coverage, as, again, no one has ever denied there would be. I have no idea why you keep posting daily news updates here. Someone else has been arrested and so the media report that. There'll be a trial, or trials, and they'll report that too, somewhere down the running order or in the inside pages of the press. None of this has anything to do with anything. And if you don't understand the actor/film analogy or the logical fallacy entailed in moving from "thing X is likely to have characteristic Y" to "anything with characteristic Y must be of sort thing X" then I'm at a loss as to what else to say (which may be a good thing). If WP wants to be the place to come to for a round-up of the Press Association's UK crime and courts reporting over the years, good luck to it. It's already the porn star and Pokemon character directory after all. But you guys better get busy - there are an awful lot of killings and other crimes that are seeing ongoing coverage of new developments, eg this one and this one; or this "Disappearance of .. " story - over 120 news reports according to Google News, with coverage in the Scottish and regional press, national UK media and Gulf news sites too, going back months. And we've missed literally thousands from other countries and other decades. N-HH talk/edits 08:52, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as per above reasons. Autarch (talk) 02:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep -- at least for the moment. We get a lot of articles on murders that are heavily covered in the news. They usually end off getting retitled as "murder of foo". The time to judge this is a few months after a person is convicted of the murder. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete WP:NOTNEWS. It's a news story, but where's the encyclopedic relevance? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep - we are past the news-spike period now, yet this story keeps surfacing due to multiple issues about both the victim, the method of disaperance/murder, and the now multiple suspects. A good piece in the middle of this debate by Paul MacDermott made up my mind, on top of the significant and continuing national and international news coverage. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well no, the story keeps surfacing because, like most crime investigations, it's a developing news story. That does not make it an encyclopedia topic, whether judged by rational common sense standards or by what guidelines actually say as opposed to a selective and generous interpretation of them. And no, reports in the Irish Independent - which regularly covers news from across the Irish Sea - based primarily on syndicated PA copy do not count as "significant .. international news coverage". N-HH talk/edits 10:04, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

There is also the International Business Times, which I used as a reference in the article. Paul MacDermott (talk) 10:43, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope after 6+ years and 91k edits I can tell the difference between a replicated PA News release and a genuine new report that would pass WP:REF. If it's making news in Libya and has multiple hits on MSNBC, that concludes international. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 16:07, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

That's one brief mention on one Libyan news site. She used to work in Libya and I have no doubt that, if not replicated directly, it is mostly sourced from UK wire and other media copy. As for the msnbc link, the text excerpts suggests those results are repeated versions of the same report, and from where I'm sitting, the internal links go to video clips that say nothing about the case. I did find what appears to be a text version of that report, here, which reveals that it is also one very short piece, and one explicitly cobbled together by cutting and pasting from UK reports. I'm sure there are a few more around. But how low does our bar go? I guess you'll also have seen my lengthy comment on the Tia Sharp AFD as to where guidelines suggest that bar is (and at least with that case it can be said that reports have been splashed across UK front pages and at the head of news bulletins, which is very definitely not the case here). N-HH talk/edits 16:59, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep for the reasons given above by Paul MacDermott. -- The Anome (talk) 07:37, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Weak keep - obviously passes WP:GNG, but I am concerned about more Missing white woman syndrome articles. Bearian (talk) 21:05, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep Worthy of an encyclopedic article. Am always suprised when 'has no lasting notability' is quoted. How do we know that at this time?--Egghead06 (talk) 05:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

So you don't know that it is notable in any enduring sense, but think it should have an article? Where is the policy or guideline that says that? I'm always surprised when this argument gets deployed in favour of keeping pages and when people justify articles speculatively. On that basis, we should have an article on every single Equity member who's ever been mentioned in arts coverage, on the basis that we "can't be sure" they won't one day be notable actors. N-HH talk/edits 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Just to respond to a couple of points made above. I suspect a lot of the Tia Sharp stuff is also duplicated by various publications. This, for example was probably picked up from another source and I doubt a local newspaper from the Midlands actually sent someone to London to cover the story (could be wrong though). But as I said the other day, these two cases are separate and must be judged on their own merits. Also nobody has suggested we should have an article on every single murder case, because clearly most wouldn't be of encyclopedic content. If you feel strongly about this issue then open a discussion about it at the relevant place and suggest some guidelines. An afd discussion isn't really the place for that. Paul MacDermott (talk) 12:10, 16 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:29, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Chavis Carter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I feel sorry for Chavis, but I dont think this is a significant event. See WP:NOTABLE Veryhuman (talk) 21:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VICTIM. The event may become notable, but the individual is not. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 22:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I have been asked to reconsider. I still do not yet remove my vote. The article should not have been moved during the AfD (see WP:NOMOVE), especially since it changes the scope of the article. It was originally a makeshift biography, it is now about an event. Per may original comment, the event may become notable. So while the article is more appropriate being about an event than about a person, I feel it was moved to avoid deletion, as it is more likely to meet WP:EVENT than WP:VICTIM. In my opinion, it is iffy if it meets WP:EVENT or not, as it says

Routine kinds of news events (including most crimes, accidents, deaths, celebrity or political news, "shock" news, stories lacking lasting value such as "water cooler stories," and viral phenomena) - whether or not tragic or widely reported at the time - are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance.

— WP:EVENT

• Enduring significance is the key, as the event has yet to demonstrate that. It is likely that it will, and when it does, it can be recreated. --Wingtipvorte PTT ∅ 20:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:VICTIM. Pburka (talk) 00:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Withdraw !vote. News coverage is increasing rapidly. See this morning's New York Times. No opinion for now. Pburka (talk) 12:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:47, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• keep I have moved the page to Death of Chavis Carter so the victim/perp/one-event objections are now moot. Article may or may not meet GNG, but based on the amount of coverage received so far, I think it likely will (I have added many refs to the article). .Gaijin42 (talk) 02:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Just for the record, moving pages during an AfD gives the closing admin headaches. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete. Fails WP:EVENT, as well as the subsections WP:EFFECT (i.e. no evidence that the death has yet resulted in different laws or police procedures), WP:GEOSCOPE (i.e. very few reports outside of Arkansas, the local area of interest), WP:INDEPTH (i.e. no coverage in books, major news magazines, or TV news specialty shows), WP:PERSISTENCE (i.e. one brief news spike), and possibly WP:DIVERSE (i.e. no significant national or international coverage). (Obviously fails WP:VICTIM as a biographical article.) Location (talk) 03:43, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

While obviously persistence is an unknown at this point since the event is new, I believe some of your other assertions are incorrect. The FBI has announced an investigation, the NY Daily news, wrote a story, MSNBC's National "Ed Show" ran a story, NBC's "The Grio" has run several stories, as well as Vibe, Think Progress, HuffPost, DemocracyNow, BET, Gawker, Reason Online, CBS (via the AP). I have added many refs (although not inline footnotes yet) that I believe contradict the majority of your argument, particularly WP:DIVERSE, and WP:INDEPTH. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

An investigation following an incident is routine and is not sufficient to pass WP:EFFECT. I fail to see how rehashing a report that "a handcuffed man died in the back of a police car due to a gunshot and we don't know why" yet passes the qualifications of "significant" or "in-depth" in WP:DIVERSE and WP:INDEPTH. Reporting of breaking news stories also fail WP:NOT#JOURNALISM. Location (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete- for now and revisit in 3 or 6 months. --Mollskman (talk) 05:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete NOTNEWS - we dont let an article sit and see if it develops notability. We delete a non notable article and allow recreation IF it develops notability later. -- The Red Pen of Doom 12:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Actually, neither. If the article does have potential but no notability then it should be placed in the article incubator. But even then this event is starting to gain traction. If this does become stagnant and almost no national controversy is aroused (which isn't likely), then the article should be deleted. But for now, it would be more efficient to leave this up or incubate it rather than irreversibly burn the article.--Valadar917 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• I was asked to review my !vote and I still do not see that this is anything at this time to support an encyclopedic article. once the investigation is completed then there might be. or if there are some changes in laws or police procedures that come into effect because of the incident. or if it becomes a major issue in upcoming elections. or if the protests spark riots that burn down half the city. but none of those have happened yet. as it stands, it is a run of the mill case of questionable happenings by the police that have sparked run of the mill protests to seek further investigations into those actions.-- The Red Pen of Doom 19:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

• comment this is now getting international attention http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/aug/03/chavis-carter-handduffed-shooting?newsfeed=true Gaijin42 (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep for now per international coverage. seem to pass WP:GNG.--BabbaQ (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep it Increasing coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BMWcomputer (talk • contribs) 18:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
• comment, additional international coverage
  • UK http://uk.news.yahoo.com/probe-man-shoots-himself-cop-car-150348817.html
  • UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9462644/Outrage-in-US-as-black-man-is-shot-in-head-while-handcuffed-in-police-car.html
  • Canada http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Shooting+youth+police+triggers+Arkansas+protests/7062802/story.html
  • Australia http://www.smh.com.au/world/handcuffed-in-a-police-car-how-did-suspect-shoot-himself-20120809-23v5x.html
  • Australia http://www.theage.com.au/world/handcuffed-in-a-police-car-how-did-suspect-shoot-himself-20120809-23v5x.htmlGaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 17:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep as Death of Chavis Carter. Continuing coverage, now including international. Article needs substantial attention to add basic facts (for example, where are the dates?), wikilinks and update.--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:34, 10 August 2012‎ (UTC)

Agreed it needs major improvement. I didnt want to put in effort if its going to be just summarily deleted though. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (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) TheSpecialUser  03:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

List of proposed geoengineering schemes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This really seem like a case of WP:NOTDIR. Maybe it's not, but as of the current version there is no real criteria for inclusion. Proposed by whom? Anyone can propose something. It doesn't make the proposals notables. Maybe the list could be salvaged by making it about a list of notable geoengineering projects. The list could also be userfied if time constraints make it impossible to re-scope in the short term. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 11:58, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep I've clarified now that this is for WP:NOTABLE content only. It can't be sensibly merged with geoengineering without a significant loss of content or context. Much of the content is already blue-linked, showing it meets WP:NOTABLE. There are many other examples of 'list' type articles on WP. Andrewjlockley (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

How many are actually notable (significant coverage in independent secondary sources), and how many are notable that aren't already covered in the parent article geoengineering? IRWolfie- (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep and improve – per WP:PRESERVE. Entries on the page appear to be mostly notable, per the sources in the article. At this time, some of the topics appear to lack individual articles despite their notability. Northamerica1000 11:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:LISTPURP – Restricting it to scientific publications makes sense. I'd sure like to see better explanations of the individual points though. Regards, RJH (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep Perhaps there may be some individual projects which should be deleted from the list, but the overall list should be kept. Any red-linked articles can be created, and their presence here is an incentive for interested editors to create the articles. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:24, 14 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

AdBrite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Another online advertising network, one among numerous. The claim of significance is the peak of 2% of the advertising market in 2008. Though search gives quite a lot of results, I failed to spot anything apart of routine deals reports, HowTos, etc. Overall I see no but notability. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) (talk) 22:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:54, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep  Here is the coverage from Bloomberg Businessweek.  "Routine" coverage is the kind of coverage that Obama gets, and means that a topic passes WP:GNG, and is one that we want to cover on Knowledge.  WP:ROUTINE is an issue for WP:NOT events, and AdBrite is not an event.  Next, Knowledge may or may not cover "significant topics", we cover topics that get sufficiently significant attention from the world at large–as per WP:N, "Determining notability does not necessarily depend on things like fame, importance, or popularity—although those may enhance the acceptability of a subject that meets the guidelines explained below."  Next, arguing that a topic is "one of numerous" appears to be an argumentum ad numerum fallacy, because it not specific about the coverage for this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:40, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball keep. Clearly passes the general, web and corp notability guidelines. Perhaps a good application of WP:BEFORE - try google news. Full articles devoted to them or their executives in NY Times, LA Times, WS Journal, CNN, etc. This was a significant dot com startup that received several rounds of venture finance, had well known executives, and made quite a splash. An encyclopedic knowledge of the online advertising world would not be complete without knowing about this company. They were perhaps the #3 or #4 in their heyday, but #1 for aggregating the specialized market of smaller publishers. It would be like covering the field of American automobiles without mentioning Jeep. Anyway, hundreds of major media sources including plenty of articles devoted to this company specifically. Wikidemon (talk) 07:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • All of these sources No inherited notability (as they are not on company) with an exception of NYT article which fails WP:CORPDEPTH. With such sources it is more of snowball delete. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
    • They absolutely are on the company. Have you read them? What do you think they're talking about, Chocolate pudding? - Wikidemon (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I did. Did you?
        1. 2-paragraph (67 words) report on investment into AdBrite.
        2. About Philip J. Kaplan (see WP:NCORP § Primary criteria depth of coverage criterion #12).
        3. Interview with Kaplan (see WP:NCORP § Primary criteria independence of source criteria #7-8).
        4. A 473-word article about advertising on Facebook with AdBrite discussed among 4 advertising companies as potentially second successful. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Yes, absolutely. You're being silly here, and I wonder if you know what makes a software service notable. Saying that an article about a company's services, management, performance, and competitive position doesn't make the company notable because it isn't about the company is like saying that an article about a sports figure's olympic performance doesn't establish their notability because it isn't about them. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:29, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
          • First of all, this article is not about service, it's about company. Next, if market share at all adds to notability (relevant policy/guideline, please), definitely only significant market share would help, not the peak of 2% once in a lifetime. Third, "article about a company's services, management, performance, and competitive position" makes the company notable if two conditions are met: there is significant depth of description of the subject (service, person, product) in context of this particular company AND this articles allows to conclude that the services, business strategies or products (respectively) are somehow unique to this company. Otherwise this article doesn't help with this particular company's notability, but shows the notability of the kind of business activity. Fourth, non of above applies to these sources, as they do have the significant flows of either being to closely related to the company or lacking depth of coverage. In fact, all one can conclude from them is that AdBrite was founded, received investments, hired at least one employee, tried earning on Facebook and made several mobile apps. This is the generic image of nearly every modern day venture-backed company; even AdBrite's founder wouldn't guess the company's name from this description. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
            • If the article is incomplete it should be improved, not deleted. Your reasoning further suggests you don't seem to understand about online software service companies. The company is the service. It exists to offer a single service. Do you really think LinkedIn the company is a different subject than LinkedIn the website / software service? Or Yelp, Twitter, etc? It's not as if Adbrite is Sony, selling everything from toys to feature films to financial services... or Microsoft or even Yahoo! Your assessment of notability depth is obviously at odds with the guidelines, which simply require significant depth of coverage in major sources. These are business publications and columns that write 300-500 word articles, not tomes. Here, entire articles in mass circulation periodicals are written about Adbrite, or about specific things about Adbrite. The bottom line is this, for a reader to be educated about the online advertising market in the mid 2000s must know about Adbrite, without knowing about Adbrite their understanding of the topic is incomplete. That's why I brought up the Jeep example. Jeep had about 2% share of all US automobiles and wasn't doing anything unique for most of its existence. But if you asked someone what they knew about the industry and they had no awareness of Jeep they would be pretty clueless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikidemon (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 August 2012

LinkedIn company isn't notable. As well as nearly every company behind web service. And yes, I am confident that company and its product are different subjects, regardless of amount of products, their type, etc. And even regardless of the common name. Think of Knowledge and Wikimedia. Jeep is notable, but definitely not for its market share. More precisely, Jeep is notable as a brand name with a company behind it being a by-product in context of Knowledge article. But AdBrite isn't notable neither as service, nor as company. They both are completely indistinguishable from their parent subjects (advertising services and companies behind such services respectively), and neither of them can't be covered in separate article, as there is nothing to cover that wouldn't be more appropriate in online advertising and advertising agency respectively. The completeness of readers' knowledge on topic can be simply addressed by adding "AdBrite" to the "Examples" sections of these articles. BTW, yellow pages of advertising market are not within the scope of Knowledge. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Snow Keep – Passes WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:GNG per:

• Washington Post article
• San Francisco Business Times article
• CNET News article
• Techcrunch article
• The New York Times article
• Los Angeles Times article
• Wall Street Journal” article
• CNN article

—Northamerica1000 07:26, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how these pass WP:CORPDEPTH. And even if so, WP:MILL (WP:NOT in essence) applies. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:25, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:CORPDEPTH says, "The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability."  The nomination indicates that there is routine coverage for this topic, which if true the depth of the coverage doesn't need to be considered for WP:CORPDEPTH to be satisfied.  WP:MILL is an essay where one of the examples is that of a bank that has been in the news five times in 30 years for being robbed.  Is AdBrite like a bank that has been in the news five times in 30 years for being robbed?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. The point of the bank example is that it mentioned with no regard to its primary activity. I wonder, how did you manage to pick this example without reading the essay and seeing the picture, which is probably a self-contained explanation of the whole essay and of the reason why this company (AdBrite) is not worth mention? Eg., paragraph 5 clearly states that topics without unique traits are essentially directory entries (WP:NOTDIR?). Note, Knowledge essays are not just liberally licensed works of literature, they are the advises on applications of particular policies.

Next, WP:CORPDEPTH reads:

If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject is not sufficient to establish notability.

As all of the coverage is trivial and/or incidental, these sources are effectively useless for the purpose of determining notability. So we are back in square zero, and no sources in our disposal to establish notability of this company, even if we reject the advise of WP:MILL. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

If "all of the coverage is trivial and/or incidental" then is the first sentence from Bloomberg Businessweek trivial or is it incidental?  The sentence is, "AdBrite, Inc. operates an Internet advertising exchange platform for companies, advertising agencies, demand side platforms, real time bidders, advertising networks, and publishers."  Unscintillating (talk) 00:39, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Both. It's trivial as it trivially reports the market business operates in and it is incidental as it is a leading sentence of the indiscriminatory collection of companies' profiles. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

IMO, "a report of the market that a business operates in" bears no relation to the WP:CORP examples of "trivial coverage".  Unscintillating (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

At least similar profile pages of software a routinely attributed as trivial coverage in AfD discussions. Don't think that companies should enjoy any special privileges in this regard. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:22, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep - the references highlighted by Northamerica1000 clearly show notability of the company. -- Eclipsed (talk) (COI Declaration) 14:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
  • May it happen that your vote is influenced by your professional affiliation with the industry? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Eclipsed discloses no professional affiliation with the industry. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
      • You mean that Alex Konanykhin, KMGi (advertising agency), Silvina Moschini, TransparentBusiness and WikiExperts.us (and Eclipsed him/herself when paid editing) are unrelated to advertising? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
        • I mean all of it. There's no connection between the editor and Adbrite. You're grasping at straws. Next thing you know, chefs can't contribute to food articles. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
          • There is a clear connection between the editor and advertising, which obviously influences his attitude towards advertising. I appreciate Eclipsed's contributions to the articles he has COI in, as he writes high-quality engaging articles it is pleasure to read. Still, this doesn't mean that he is neutral enough towards the topic to be able to !vote in unbiased way. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:11, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy 17:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This didn't particularly need to be relisted. Consensus is very clear in this discussion. Northamerica1000 11:11, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

With only 4 comments it doesn't seem much of a clear consensus. IRWolfie- (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I would also note, that no policy-based !votes (as opposed to votes in off-site meaning) were made at all. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:33, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That's certainly true on the "If you disagree with me, you must be disregarding policy" theory, or are you referring to WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, I spent quite a lot of time explaining why your position goes against WP:NCORP, and I (mistakenly, as I see now) took the fact that you vanished from discussion for your understanding of the issue. Still, I'm not sure there is any sense to reiterate that, and I have no means to explain the text that is quite obvious without my explanation. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the issue. You made a bad nomination of an article about a clearly notable company that obviously meets the notability criteria, you either don't understand notability as it applies to tech companies or you're advocating for a change in the standards that if implemented would get rid of a good deal of our encyclopedic coverage of the industry, and it looks like you're refusing to lose an argument gracefully. If it's as obvious as you say, you can simply state your position like everyone else, let other editors state theirs, and leave it to the closing administrator to weigh everything. Instead you've followed up every contrary argument with a counterargument or attempt at wikilawyering, in some cases dismissively and insultingly, and are insisting on having the last word on _each_ _single_ _comment_ here. In contested deletion discussions that's a recipe for a mess. How about we disengage. If you don't keep announcing that nobody here has made a policy-based argument, or that I don't understand notability, I won't be tempted to respond. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I relisted the discussion because, though the consensus might be leaning towards keep at the moment, it's not incredibly strong. In terms of the arguments present, I wasn't entirely convinced that the consensus was strong enough to close the discussion there and then (I'm not just counting votes; both sides have made creditable arguments on an issue yet to be resolved). I don't think an extra week of discussion would do any harm; hopefully the consensus will be clearer then. If another admin wants to close this earlier, I have no objections. ItsZippy 10:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the rational clarification, and happy editing! Northamerica1000 12:22, 16 August 2012 (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'm willing to userfy upon request. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

List of geoengineering papers (part 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

List of geoengineering papers (part 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Textbook case of WP:NOTDIR. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Northamerica1000 11:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I agree that this violates WP:NOT. If kept, the two lists should be merged since the split seems to be entirely random. Pichpich (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT. This list has obviously taken a long time to collect and it is almost certainly useful to many people. However, that place is not here. Replace the word geoengineering with a more mature academic discipline, such as physics, and the reason that this should not be on Knowledge is evident. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 04:05, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment regarding the two above !votes – Not to be overly critical, but WP:NOT is an entire guideline page. These articles certainly cannot fail the entire guideline page! See also: WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Northamerica1000 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• NOTEVERYTHING: "In any encyclopedia, information cannot be included solely for being true or useful. An encyclopedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight. Although there are debates about the encyclopedic merits of several classes of entries, consensus is that the following are good examples of what Knowledge is not. The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep because it usefully extends List of proposed geoengineering schemes. Re: comment above, geoengineering is a FAR narrower field than physics, which is why you can fit all of the relevant papers on a couple of WP pages. I agree that the two lists should be merged, but the reference template breaks when you do it.Andrewjlockley (talk) 19:40, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• I can't help but think that this is a sign that Knowledge is not meant to include these large directories of links. Broken in half, this is really close to useless. Pichpich (talk) 19:44, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• Which of the approximately 16000 papers on geoengineering are you planning on adding to this growing list of papers? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:28, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• Strong Leaning Keep – Contrary to the nomination, these list articles are actually not whatsoever a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Points two to seven of WP:NOTDIR aren't applicable to these two articles at all. Point one of WP:NOTDIR (Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics) also doesn't apply because these aren't loosely associated papers within these list article. Rather, the entries are discriminate and focused upon papers about the specific topic of geoengineering. Rather than blanket deletion of this significant work, perhaps these articles could be merged into one article as a reasonable WP:SPINOFF of the List of proposed geoengineering schemes article. Importantly, see also WP:PRESERVE. Northamerica1000 11:38, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I think point 1 clearly applies, especially if you read the clarification provided by WP:SALAT. The topic of geoengineering is very broad and its boundaries are ill-defined. Criteria for inclusion in this list will therefore always be unclear and subject to editor's subjective assessments. Note also that this is a very hot (no pun intended) area of research so we're likely to need List of geoengineering papers (part 3) or List of geoengineering papers (part 4) down the road further lowering the odds of finding relevant information. As IRWolfie points out there are excellent online repositories (most notably the Oxford database) and we should send point our readers there rather than offering a very poor substitute split in half and therefore unsearchable, lacking keyword search, lacking abstracts. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• userify, or possibly transwikify Per WP:SALAT, the list is indiscriminate and of almost unlimited extent and thus not suitable. There is nothing to prevent this list going on for thousands and thousands of papers. If it is going to be kept in some form it should be into narrowly defined subtopics that at least puts some limitations on size (the most interested person can do this splitting). The article is also pointless; article databases like google scholar etc already exist and do a much better job than these very large lists. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:14, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I didn't consider the notion of these lists being expanded when formulating my !vote above, which would make navigation more difficult. Perhaps other means to organize the data by sections and transfer it all onto one page is possible. However, if these articles are to be deleted, it would be a waste of time to organize it all just to see it vanish. I slightly modified my !vote above, and it may change further after further consideration. Northamerica1000 05:17, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Withdraw my above !vote. Northamerica1000 11:18, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOT. Johnfos (talk) 04:03, 17 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Provost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This was previously deleted at Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Adrian Provost and this recreation still lacks the significant secondary independent sources that are required. The only source that is actually about the subject is an interview from a questionable source. Spartaz 16:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Neutral Weak Delete. Almost everything in here is verifiable. Notability is borderline. I think it would be guaranteed if the thing about being the "youngest franchise owner in the history of American professional sports" is given an actual supporting citation, preferably from a source that's not already being used. - Jorgath (talk) 17:23, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Rethought what I said. Essentially, I'm for deletion unless the youngest franchise owner thing gets verified. - Jorgath (talk) 18:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, a lot of sub-notable accomplishments don't add up to notability. Hairhorn (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete, I can't find any support for the claim about being the youngest owner ever. While most of the things are verifiable, they are not things that make him notable. --bonadea contributions talk 17:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete - Even if "youngest owner of ever" is true, that's not sufficient for notability IMO. It's kind of a moving bar -- the next time someone even younger becomes an owner does this one suddenly become less notable? --Lquilter (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - His main activity appears to be as a real estate agent at which I imagine he is quite successful, but not in a way that has generated the coverage needed to establish notability. The claim as youngest sports franchise owner, if true, represents a point of trivia and not a claim to notability that would demand inclusion in an encyclopedia. -- Whpq (talk) 16:34, 15 August 2012 (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 best arguments for deletion here point out that the coverage seems to be fairly routine for an academic paper, taking a narrow interpretation of WP:GNG. The closest guideline seems to be in the "Academic and technical books" section of WP:BKCRIT, which includes "how influential the is considered to be in its specialty area" as a possible criteria. I think the consensus in this discussion was that it was not a particularly influential study. Mark Arsten (talk) 21:05, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Article fails WP:GNG aprock (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Google returns only links to the article itself, wikipedia articles mentioning the article, blog posts, and forum posts. Google scholar only returns papers by the authors, papers which cite the paper, but no reviews or rebuttals which deal with the paper specifically.

Of the sources listed in the wikipedia article, six of them (including the article topic) were published together in the same journal issue. As for the independent sources, two deal with the broad topic of race and intelligence research using the review as a reference point. The rest refer to the subject only in the citations with a couple inline citations which briefly mention the authors and/or paper.

This article appears to be an attempt to insert an WP:UNDUE promotional article relating to the paper's authors contrary to the WP:SPAM guideline. The editor Yfever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) created a similar promotional article previously: How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?. aprock (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete I would say that the notability threshold for a single paper has to be set very high; reference in other papers in the field is not high enough. I don't see the evidence that this paper meets any such standard. Mangoe (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that "reference in other papers in the field" would not meet WP:GNG. But several of the sources provide extensive coverage. Have you checked them? Unfortunately, aprock's initial summary of the source coverage was incorrect. We are in the process of fixing that. If these sources provide many pages of detailed review and commentary, would your delete turn into a keep? Yfever (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment – Note that this paper is briefly mentioned on History of the race and intelligence controversy. Otherwise I'm indifferent to the fate of this page just because the topic is distasteful. Shrug. Regards, RJH (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:GNG nine ways from Sunday. Two non-geneticists making the same old genetic argument without a clue. Fail. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 08:37, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you could specify precisely which parts of WP:GNG this article fails. For example, can we all agree that all the sources used in the article are reliable? Once we establish that, we can move on to other aspects of WP:GNG. Yfever (talk) 13:54, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Aprock: Is your summary of the sources fair? For example, you claim that Suzuki and Aronson (2005) is "citation only." Untrue! All of Suzuki and Aronson is devoted to disputing the conclusions of Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. Would you please revise your descriptions above to make them more accurate? Yfever (talk) 14:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I've updated the summary. aprock (talk) 14:51, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate the correction. But there are several other sources with similar extensive discussions. (I am not asking you to review all the sources, but please don't provide inaccurate summaries that other editors will find confusing.) For example, Nesbitt (2009) devotes almost an entire appendix to Thirty Years of Research on Race Differences in Cognitive Ability. If anything, his discussion is more extensive than Suzuki and Aronson (2005). Yfever (talk) 15:01, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not have a copy of Nesbitt when I reviewed all sources, but a google search of the book only finds the phrase "Thirty years of research" in the references. I've checked out a copy, and as best I can tell what you describe as "devotes almost an entire appendix to Thirty Years of Research ..." is actually an appendix devoted to rebutting the conclusions of several authors over a large body of work. By my count over 30 sources are referred to in Appendix B. That appendix is certainly a good source which establishes notability the articles Race and Intelligence and History of the Race and Intelligence debate. It does not however treat the 2005 paper as a singular apart from the wide body of work cited, but rather as a part of a larger body of work. aprock (talk) 16:07, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Your descriptions are still wrong. I was referring to Nesbitt (2009), not Nesbitt (2005). Would it be OK if I just fixed the descriptions myself rather than badgering you for each one? I do not think we have a substantive disagreement. Yfever (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I was referring to Nesbitt (2009) as well. Nesbitt (2005) does not have an Appendix B. aprock (talk) 07:49, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Aprock -- Thanks much for the summary. Minor correction: The Charles Murray cite is more extensive than noted in your summary. There's a brief cite by title, but by author more; Murray used the article quite a bit as a touchstone in his own musings / responses to the subject. --Lquilter (talk) 19:04, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "use the article ... as a touchstone" means. If you review the supplied footnotes, you can see that four footnotes refer to the work (50, 51, 53, 56) covering about six sentences. Maybe that's more than a brief mention. Murray certain cites other works by R/J as well as citing works cited in the review. aprock (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as nominator. aprock (talk) 14:53, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

As with most secondary works of authors, the best place to include the content is in the author's own article. aprock (talk) 16:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Could you please specify precisely which parts of WP:GNG this article fails? Consider your claim that "no reviews or rebuttals which deal with the paper specifically." This is clearly false, as you acknowledge in the case of Suzuki and Aronson (2005). But, unless you correct these mistakes, new participants to this discussion will be misled. Yfever (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Outside of the articles published in the exact same journal issue, there are no sources which deal with the paper as a standalone topic. The only independent source which deals with the topic non-trivially is Nesbitt (2009) which was mentioned above. You are free to make the case for notability. aprock (talk) 07:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I am going to add back your description of "extensive discussion" to Suzuki and Aronson (2005). Why remove it? I will apply a similar description to those sources that merit it. If it is relevant to this AfD that some sources feature a single sentence (and I agree that it is), then it is also relevant which sources feature extensive discussion. Yfever (talk) 08:46, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Please do not edit my comments. aprock (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that your were trying to provide a listing of the sources that was neutral. Instead, you seem to have structured the listing to support your delete position, which is fine. So, I will provide an alternate listing below. Yfever (talk) 19:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep as author. Several editors have cited WP:GNG but no one has specified how it applies. To quote:

If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list.

There seems (to me) little doubt that the dozen or so sources are all "reliable." There seems (to me) little doubt that the coverage provided is "significant" since it covers 20+ pages of dense academic prose. Once we can agree that there is significant coverage in reliable sources, then we can move on to other possible complaints. But it would be useful to the discussion to establish these basic facts first. Yfever (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Articles published in the same journal issue are not independent of the subject and cannot denote notability in any way. aprock (talk) 15:57, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course they are. WP:GNG provides a clear description of the meaning of independent of the subject. Here it is:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

Consider Suzuki and Aronson (2005). Does that look like self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases? Of course not. The fact that Suzuki and Aronson (2005) was published in volume 11, number 2 of Psychology, Public Policy and Law instead of volume 11, number 3 of Psychology, Public Policy and Law or instead of another journal has no bearing on whether or not it is independent of Thirty Years. Yfever (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as insufficiently notable. For a stand-alone academic paper to be notable it has to be, by itself, field-changing. This review article -- which by definition does not present new evidence but surveys and summarizes existing research with the authors' own interpretation on it -- may have received some controversy and response but that doesn't make it notable per se; simply part of the ebb and flow of academic discourse around an admittedly notable and controversial topic.
  As for the sources listed under "references" -- am I to take it that these are intended to be cites to the paper? Or references for this Knowledge article (which is what usually goes under "References"? Either way, three are by the authors; four additional ones are contemporaneous papers in the same journal -- so part of a response dialog, and not "independent". That's half of the fourteen. An additional seven discussions, even if lengthy (as, e.g., the Charles Murray piece was) does not appear, to me, to be "field-changing". If highly cited, however, the paper should certainly be noted on the Knowledge articles about the authors (J. Philippe Rushton and Arthur Jensen). --Lquilter (talk) 18:59, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

You place "field-changing" in quotation marks. Is this an actual Knowledge standard? If so, please provide a link. You also seem to have your own definition of "independent." Consider what WP:GNG says:

"Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject or its creator. For example, self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, the subject's website, autobiographies, and press releases are not considered independent.

Clearly, an article by different authors, whether it is in the same journal (or issue) or in a different journal (or issue) qualifies as "independent." But leaving those two disagreement aside, would you agree that we have significant coverage from reliable sources? I am looking to establish consensus on those two points. Yfever (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

(1) I'm quoting myself when I say "field-changing".

(2) As far as "independent", I'm using a common sense definition. Multiple articles published in a thematic issue of a journal, all responding to each other and citing each other, are really part of the same publication.

(3) You are looking to establish consensus on whether these are reliable sources. They are reliable for establishing facts or opinions about the article or issues discussed within the article. However, these alone will not suffice to establish notability. Notability isn't just about applying mechanically criteria of having 2+ "reliable sources". If it were, then 95% of all academic papers would be individually notable. Instead, notability is about being notable within the class. So a single academic paper has to be notable within its class. Consider the possible classes: (a) all academic papers; (b) academic papers in sociology; (c) writings on race and intelligence; (d) review articles and meta-analyses. I fail to see how this article is notable within any of these possible classes.

From last to first, review articles and meta-analyses might very often have quite high cite counts, because it's convenient to cite to the review rather than dig out the source -- they are in that sense secondary (not primary) literature. This article has 200+ in google scholar, which would be a good number for an individual paper presenting primary research. But it's less impressive (in my view) for a review article, and in any case, I agree with User:Aprock that the standard for a paper has to be very high -- hence my use of the term "field-changing".

Consider another class: Writings on race and intelligence -- a contentious area that has without doubt generated some very notable scholarship and popular books; see, e.g., Murray's The Bell Curve and Gould's The Mismeasure of Man among them. This paper does not fare very well when considered with these much more notable works in the same general class (secondary scholarship on the topic of race and intelligence), which have each received 5000+ citations in google scholar. Acknowledging that I'm comparing books with a paper, still, the 200+ for this paper does not really stack up well.

Those were the two classes that seemed most likely to produce "notability" for this article. "Academic papers within sociology" -- again, you're going to have to compare the article with articles that have defined entire fields, transformed analyses, provided stunning new insights, and have thousands of cites. And even more so with the class of "academic papers" broadly.

So, yeah. You have cited a half-dozen reliable, independent sources, which are indeed reliable for discussions of the article in the context of the writers or the field of study generally. But that's not going to get this editor to agree that they confer notability on this one individual paper.

--Lquilter (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete, but ... I was asked to take a look at this afd. We have no fixed standards for journal articles. What has been established over the years is that we interpret the criteria for notability rather strictly and carefully. Here's why: Very roughly, About 1/2 of all articles published are cited 2 or more times by people other than the authors. Most of such citation will amount to mentions, but some will be substantial. If we used the GNG in the most inclusive possible sense, probably hundreds of thousands of journal articles a year would qualify. Now, we're not paper, and if we wanted to include these 5 or 10 million articles so far published, the database would accommodate it, though we'd have a very hard time getting people to write the articles here in other than the most formulaic manner. But no scientist thinks these many papers are notable in any realistic sense. So what are the standards: first of all, the one Lquilter mentioned, "field-changing"--that's not the term I would use, what I would use would be, much more simply, "famous". Famous in the sense that it's one of the key papers people would cite in the subject, that it has become a classic (Garfield's accounts of what he calls "Citation Classics" are probably all worth articles, especially because Garfield includes an analysis of just why they're important), that it is widely taught, that it is the usual source. In other words, that it is much more than routine.

Citations is another measure, but Lquilter is again correct that review articles have very high numbers of citations because people typically start of the "Introduction" section of a scientific paper by listing all significant recent reviews of the subject. But yet, review papers can sometimes be the classic statement of the field.

I consider it very important that we do not use the opportunity provided by such papers to make multiple articles on the same subject. Jensen is famous; Rushton, highly notable. Jensen's most important work is notable in its own right, and properly has an article: the true classic paper representing his POV, How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?; we also have an article here on The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability (book), which does meet the (very loose) standards for NBOOK, and can probably be justified as being his fullest presentation-- we might be able to have one on Bias in Mental Testing, which WorldCat shows as his most widely held book. . There is some discussion over whether we should in fact cover every significantly reviewed academic book from high quality publishers--personally I do not think we should, despite the way NBOOK is worded, but it is a reasonable position. If there were consensus for it otherwise, I would not strongly oppose it. To do the same for journal articles would in my opinion be ridiculous.

For this particular review paper, I see no evidence that it is the classic review statement of his work, To write an article on it, I would want at least one or two such statements from recognized authoritative works. We really shouldn't be making such judgments ourselves. But what might possibly be notable is the special issue of the journal-- because such special issues, with papers by people of various views, can indeed serve as the best summary of the state of knowledge. I invite Yfever to write this, so we can evaluate it. ` DGG ( talk ) 03:23, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

DGG: Thanks for these comments. Let me focus for now on your constructive suggestion that we have an article devoted to the entire special issue. I would be ready to write such an article if we could reach consensus ahead of time that such an article would not be deleted. I suspect, however, that editors (other than you) who want to delete this article would also want to delete that article, for all the same reasons they offer above. Or am I being too cynical? Yfever (talk) 06:56, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, a special-topic journal issue is going to be a lot more like a book in my view and has an easier shot at being notable than a journal article. But you're not going to get a guarantee from editors, because it's going to depend on the specific sources available, and the specific editors who look at any AfD. --Lquilter (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment on Similar Knowledge Articles: I thought it might be useful to gather other examples of Knowledge articles that, like this one, focus on a single academic article. My sense is that, as Knowledge continues to grow, there are, each month, more such articles. Indeed, I would hope that, eventually, we would have Knowledge articles about every article with significant coverage --- meaning much more than just a citation or two --- from reliable sources. My preferred analogy would be to Knowledge's increase in coverage of soccer players. Many years ago, only "notable" soccer players had pages. Now, everyone that plays in at least one professional game has an article. I think that this increase in coverage is a good thing. Anyway, here are some similar articles: The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two, No Silver Bullet, Is Justified True Belief Knowledge?, The Use of Knowledge in Society, Communication Theory of Secrecy Systems, On Physical Lines of Force, How Much Can We Boost IQ and Scholastic Achievement?, Equation of State Calculations by Fast Computing Machines, Obedience to authority, The Market for Lemons, Computing Machinery and Intelligence, An Experimental Enquiry Concerning the Source of the Heat which is Excited by Friction, On the Equilibrium of Heterogeneous Substances, Methodology of Positive Economics, On Formally Undecidable Propositions of Principia Mathematica and Related Systems, Systems of Logic Based on Ordinals, Modigliani–Miller theorem, Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen, Language identification in the limit, Two Dogmas of Empiricism, Fundamental Concepts in Programming Languages and The next 700 programming languages. Obviously, these articles cover a wide range, some being much more about a concept introduced by a single article than about the article itself. But, broadly, I think they represent current Knowledge practice. If a single academic article has significant coverage in reliable sources (and someone is willing to put in the time to make it a good article), then why would we want to delete it? Yfever (talk) 07:41, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
  • You lost me at every soccer player in at least one professional game, which is a decision that is absurd. But it's less absurd than "every scholarly article" that has the level of coverage that this one does. --Lquilter (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

    Please replace "you" with "Knowledge" in this comment. Deciding to cover every single professional soccer player (who has played in at least one professional game) was not a decision that I made. It was a decision that the Knowledge community made. Wouldn't everyone agree that the consistent trend in Knowledge over the last decade has been in this direction, to provide more coverage of more topics? I think it has. I predict that we will see the same thing happening in regards to academic articles that we have seen in regard to soccer players. You may think that Knowledge is heading in the wrong direction, but I doubt that you can come up with a single example in which there are fewer individual articles about items in class X --- whether it be soccer players, academic articles or anything else --- today than there were 5 years ago. Yfever (talk) 18:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just saying that you're not going to persuade me with the all-major-league-soccer-players argument. Perhaps that argument will provide others though. --Lquilter (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

• • After a fairly quick review, your list of papers in wikipedia makes me even more convinced that this paper ("Thirty Years of Research") is not appropriate. All of the papers that are actually articles in Knowledge actually present theories or data; not simply review / meta-analysis articles. They are all much more famous than the one you're strongly defending, many of them foundational or transformative in their particular fields. (A few of them are not actually articles on the papers but redirect to articles discussing the underlying theory/data/research/idea.)

Seriously, I think you missed Newton's Principia. I was going to say you missed Einstein but then you got him. Give me a break! Are you really going to compare this meta-analysis/review article with all of these foundational papers? --Lquilter (talk) 14:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Lquilter: Thanks for taking the time to review these articles. I think your summary is a fair one. In particular, I am happy to grant that the clearest comparisons I found --- things like Two Dogmas of Empiricism, The Use of Knowledge in Society or No Silver Bullet --- are all much more notable than Thirty Years. My goal in listing these articles was to demonstrate that Knowledge does have articles about individual academic articles, a point I assume everyone will grant. So, I guess your position is that this article is not "field-changing" or "classic" enough to merit an article on Knowledge. My position is that such criteria are irrelevant. Any article with significant coverage from reliable sources --- and I think we agree that Thirty Years has that --- can become a Knowledge article, if someone is willing to write it.

Apologies if I have misconstrued your views. This discussion has been helpful to me (at least) because it has brought the source of our disagreement into sharp relief. If Knowledge only had room for 100 (or 1,000 or . . .) academic articles, than Thirty Years would not make the cut. But anyone, like me, who thinks that there is plenty of room in Knowledge, as long as we have significant coverage in reliable sources, will not worry about where in any Platonic ranking of notability this article lies. With luck, others will chime in on this central point. Yfever (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not about not having "room for" articles. No editor makes that argument. It is about maintaining a balanced encyclopedia that is not idiosyncratic and biased in favor of people's personal agendas. We would never be able to get enough editors interested in writing articles about all the papers that have similar qualifications as the "Thirty Years" paper. We should set the bar high enough so that we can hope to achieve comprehensive coverage of everything above the bar; and articles of interest to a broader readership. If we set the bar too low we will never hope to have comprehensive coverage, and instead have idiosyncratic coverage based on agendas and POVs and particular passions. .... The bar can gradually lower or raise depending on editor availability, interest, audience interest, new articles, etc. But "Thirty Years" is way, way below the bar currently established for individual papers. --Lquilter (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of women artists in art history (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Per WP:NOTESSAY. If there's a notable topic worth salvaging here, Women in art history is probably a better way of putting it. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. --BDD (talk) 16:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete Essay lacking any citations. As the nominator says, some of this might be salvageable as material in a general article on women as artists, but without citations it's hard to say what is of merit here. Mangoe (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep needs work but enormous potential for improvement...Modernist (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep or at least merge back to Women artists, which it was split out from. All reads like standard art history course content. Women in art history would be female art historians, surely? Women artists in art history maybe or Coverage of women artists in art history? Johnbod (talk) 14:34, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to develop--this is an important subject for the encyclopedia to cover well. --Jgmikulay (talk) 17:46, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
• Keep per Modernist, Johnbod, and Jgmikulay. Great potential here, per WP:BEFORE. See also past precedent at such cases as Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Crisis of the Roman Republic. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment. I'm not sure what this article is about. Is the word "depiction" in the title referring to visual depiction? Is the title alternatively "Depiction of women artists in art"? Is this an examination of how art history has treated women artists? In that case it is an examination of the verbal treatment of female artists. Bus stop (talk) 11:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

While I'm unsure what is article is about, I would like to add this photograph to it. Perhaps the title of this article needs to be changed? Bus stop (talk) 11:25, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I added the image as well as 2 feminist templates and a reference section. The article needs text, referencing and work - the potential is an important addition to the visual arts on wikipedia...Modernist (talk) 17:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think it is a good image. The subject matter here and that image make a good match. Bus stop (talk) 02:26, 16 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:13, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Top association football goal scorers in a single season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

PROD contested by IP with the rationale "there is the topicality" - no idea what that means. This is basically a list of footballers who have scored lots of goals - which is nice, but not very notable. Appears to be LISTCRUFT and also fail OR. GiantSnowman 15:27, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 15:28, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Delete: Per what nominator said. --Arsenalkid700 (talk) 22:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Comment It is pretty notable if the media makes a huge deal when Messi topped the tables. --Mr. Mario (talk) 23:47, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Messi's goals got a lot of coverage; the topic we are discussing did not - an important difference. GiantSnowman 08:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. This list is original research with indication that it meets WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:11, 16 August 2012 (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 Occupy Boston. SarahStierch (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The Boston Occupier (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Although there are some news hits for this from reliable sources there is nothing that indicates there has been significant coverage of this "newspaper" that only published one edition. Fails WP:GNG MisterUnit (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:17, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:18, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge/redirect to Occupy Boston. There's not enough coverage of this publication for it to have its own article at this time. I found four sources that covered the paper when it first launched (most of which are by the same paper and person). The most recent thing I could find was from January. There's no depth of coverage here to merit an article to itself. However, I do think that this would be worth having a section on the Occupy Boston page with this title being a redirect to that article. The OB page needs fleshing out anyway, so I think that this would be a good alternative to outright deletion.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:43, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Done. Everything has been transferred to the OB page. All that's left is to redirect now. This is notable enough for a mention on OB, but not for its own page.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Keep. However, merge to Occupy Boston is also acceptable. Article is much improved since this AfD was started. This is now an alternative newspaper that has published 9 issues in print and also publishes online. It's had nontrivial coverage in other news media. There appears to be enough here for a stand-alone article, and the topic (e.g., newspaper and Kickstarter project) is sufficiently distinct from the rest of the Occupy Boston article to make a separate article seem reasonable. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• My issue is that most of the coverage of this paper has been primary or through non-reliable sources. There was some coverage from local newspaper/blogs that just squeak by as reliable sources, but the newspaper has not been given any in-depth coverage in any mainstream press. The current sources are by three local newspapers/blogs between November and January, two of which are by the same person. There's just no depth of coverage over a longer period of time. Once the initial novelty of the idea of reporting on such a paper wore off nobody has written about it, which was my biggest reason for saying that there's not enough coverage for the paper. All of the current sources only talk about the paper's launch so I'd say it needs more than a handful of blog entries about the paper's beginnings.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 03:36, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect: to Occupy Boston. While such coverage the subject has received is just barely enough, from just barely noteworthy enough sources, to meet the GNG, I question whether there is - or will ever be - enough content to warrant a standalone article. Everything pertinent has already been merged. Ravenswing 22:56, 10 August 2012 (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 Banknote#Vertical orientation. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Vertical currency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

This doesn't seem to be a real thing. The point of the page seems to be to promote http://dowlingduncan.com and their entry in a design contest. No coverage of the concept, if there is one, in reliable sources. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Redirect to Banknote#Vertical orientation, which says much the same thing. The Colombian peso certainly appears to have a vertical design, an orientation which is slightly interesting although not deserving of a separate article. --Colapeninsula (talk) 10:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Merge to Banknote – Vertical orientation, which would expand this section of the Banknote article. Northamerica1000 12:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment— It's true that that section of the banknote article says the same thing as this article; that's because that material was added by the creator of this article. If it wouldn't mess up the debate here and I were interested in editing the banknote article, I'd take it out of there as promotional and made up as well. I really don't think that "vertical currency" is a real thing; there's nothing in any sources that I could find.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 13:20, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Try here and here . Bermuda here . Don't know where you looked but it's one of the top Google hits.--Degen Earthfast (talk) 14:41, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw those. The first one is a blog reporting on the second one. The second one has an agenda to push, and the third one is a blog with pictures saying they're cool. How are these reliable sources for the existence of an encyclopedic concept called vertical money?— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Reasoning and examples thereof--173.49.56.43 (talk) 22:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as promotional material. I t hink the most that could be reliably stated is that the orientation is uncommon. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 10 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Aranea framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think "Aranea framework" is a notable software, at least its article can not show that. –ebraminio 08:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 09:51, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not seem notable under either WP:NSOFT or WP:GNG. Unlikely to meet the significance requirement of WP:NSOFT even if sources are found. -- BenTels (talk) 00:54, 11 August 2012 (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. Mark Arsten (talk) 03:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Richard A. Russell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Being "Deputy Associate Director of National Intelligence for Intelligence Community Enterprise Solutions" does not make one notable. Content in the article has no footnotes and is not supported by any third-party references, thus subject fails WP:GNG. CharlieEchoTango (contact) 08:40, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Weak delete General notability not established from WP:RS. --Artene50 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 12:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as per WP:GNG Zaldax (talk) 13:14, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete He fails to make it past WP:GNG and lacks verifiable independent sources that suggest notability.Jimsteele9999 (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete due to lack of newsworthiness. Being a deputy director isn't good enough, and beyond that there's no evidence that he's known in the larger world for anything. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Openbiz Cubi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. –ebraminio 07:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no significant coverage in reliable sources independent of topic. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:33, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Does not seem to meet the requirements of either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Given the nature of the framework, is not likely to meet the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT even if sources are found. -- BenTels (talk) 00:56, 11 August 2012 (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 Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Outglow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I don't think this PHP framework is notable. –ebraminio 07:57, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 10:04, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: no significant coverage in independent reliable sources. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:05, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Lack of sources means that this framework seems not to meet either WP:GNG or WP:NSOFT. Nature of the framework means it is unlikely to meet the significance requirements of WP:NSOFT even if sources are found. -- BenTels (talk) 00:58, 11 August 2012 (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. Still not seeing that NBC report. SarahStierch (talk) 06:17, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Flying Apple Space Technologies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

No secondary sources to ascertain notability. Anbu121 (talk me) 19:28, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete: Lacks independent third party sources to establish notability. - Ahunt (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

NBC is currently writing a report on Flying Apple and will publish it during the course of the next week. The report will be published in both text and video broadcast media. If media coverage from NBC is not sufficient to meet notability guidelines, please let me know so I can continue to secure more information to make sure the article is not in immediate jeopardy of being deleted due to non-compliance with notability guidelines. Ericluwolf (talk) 20:46, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: An NBC report would definitely establish notability, but only if they actually finish it and publish it. If it comes out next week then that will be during this discussion and can be added to the article, noted here and accounted for. - Ahunt (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

• Delete as inadequately sourced. An NBC report may or may not be enough to confer notability. Multiple independent sources are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2012 (UTC).

Kotaku has featured Flying Apple's FAST-6 and FAST-7 launches on their homepage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ericluwolf (talk • contribs) 16:17, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 19:09, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:04, 10 August 2012 (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. WP:SOFTDELETE, will restore as though it were an expired PROD. Mark Arsten (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Daniel Katsük (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

I'm really not seeing the notability here. He had a couple roles, but I'm not seeing enough sources to really met WP:ACTOR. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 22:06, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 23:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: It appears we have two Daniel Katsuks. One is Daniel Katsük (voice artist), the topic of this deletion, an anime voice artist with a healthy body of work but few decent sources. The other is Daniel Katsuk (musican), NOT the subject of this AFD but sourcable as a Fort Worth musician. Schmidt, 07:18, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheSpecialUser  03:55, 17 August 2012 (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. SarahStierch (talk) 06:19, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Michael Shrimpton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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

Non-notable lawyer and minor judicial official - references do not support notability. Delete or reinstate the redirect to Mike Shrimpton. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete; I agree with the nominator that there is nothing here that meets the notability guidelines. I'm not sure if WP:POLITICIAN indicates firmly that this should become a redirect to the specific election that he didn't win, but I thought it was worth mentioning. Ubelowme _U 15:03, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• perhaps a disambig, with link to Mike the cricketer and and link to election.-- The Red Pen of Doom 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:58, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

• Delete - a fly-by unregistered IP seems to have dumped a curriculum vitae of this barrister. Possibly with his alleged successes as a student union president, legal expert, political activist and columnist in a minor magazine there may be sources out there to back it up, but I can't find much myself. The Independent Newspaper issued an apology to him, but I'm unable to find out whether there is significant coverage in the respectable newspapers. D minus for whoever wrote this article! Sionk (talk) 22:07, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
• Delete -- If he had been President of the Immigration Appeals Tribunal, I would have voted otherwise, but I gain the impression that he is merely a person who sometimes sits as chairman. That is not sufficient to prevent his being NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete fails WP:BIO. LibStar (talk) 05:06, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
• delete with some regret, now that I've discovered he believes the German secret service counted among its assets UK prime ministers Lloyd George, Attlee, Macmillan, Wilson and Heath and is currently shipping cocaine, nuclear bombs and kidnapped children in refitted U-boats - but sadly though he's quite outspoken about it (and much more), reliable secondary sources rarely mention him. As for a disambig to the election results, we don't usually provide these for minor losing candidates in UK parliamentary elections. There'd be an awful lot of them. NebY (talk) 20:53, 12 August 2012 (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 a7, no indication of notability per WP:BAND. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:02, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The Air I Breathe (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • Stats)

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