Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 August 3

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wilmy Caceres

Wilmy Caceres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable retired minor league player, per

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 01:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources, no major league experience. *yawn*Ravenmasterq 04:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability in article, first several pages of non-wiki ghits don't show notability. Never played in major leagues.--Fabrictramp 15:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dmirkin 02:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cesar Bernhardt

Cesar Bernhardt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable retired minor league player, per

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of baseball-related deletions. —Truest blue 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for above reason. --Truest blue 23:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No sources? No Major League experience? It's way back...and it's gone!Ravenmasterq 04:42, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

List of places along the Greensand Way

The result was delete. --DarkFalls ^talk 06:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of places along the Greensand Way (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information and WP:NOT a directory of loosely associated topics. There are 129 footpaths in Category:Long-distance footpaths in the United Kingdom alone, are we going to have a List of places along every single one? How about places along every major road in the world? And places along rivers? Saikokira 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The places are sufficiently covered in the content and external links at Greensand Way. --Bduke 00:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete List of loosely associated items 05:12, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• No opinion however, if the list article is deleted, then I'll add the places back into the Greensand Way article from where they were originally removed. -- SGBailey 20:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to the main article -- Whpq 21:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep—users have shown that notability exists. — Deckiller 13:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PhpWebSite

PhpWebSite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:28, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep - this coverage gives it notability Corpx 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per reliable source coverage [1] [2] [3] [4] JulesH 16:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pivotlog

Pivotlog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Delete nn. KTC 03:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. On a side note, which policy says that PROD should not be used on an article with many editors ? I couldn't find it. I notice that the last batch of CMS software I proded were deleted by User:Riana, regardless of whether or not they were old I think. Are you sure policy states that PROD can only be used on new articles or with few contributions, I thought that would only have been for speedy deletion tags that it was the case ? I was thinking that if there were many editors, then there would be many people ready to contest the PROD. Thank you though for forcing people to discuss the article, because it does seem a bit strange when I PROD an article and nobody has any opinion of it on the article talk page. Jackaranga 14:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep --DarkFalls ^talk 06:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PmWiki

PmWiki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep per coverage. While most are trivial, there are some that qualify as "significant" Corpx 05:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep First of all, kudos to Carlossuarez46 for bringing this up on AfD. – PmWiki is quite comparable to
  Portal:Free software. Google counts are similar for both (more so if you add "wiki" as a second keyword because "MoinMoin" is a German greeting). PmWiki is half a decade old and still under active development. It is widely deployed (obviously, these are self-reported and don't count in-house use). – That said, the article does need work. Rl 08:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. PmWiki is one of the most popular wiki servers in use today. Reliable source coverage [5] [6] [7] [8] etc... JulesH 16:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep PmWiki is a notable piece of software that is used on many websites. — Wenli ^(contribs) 03:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (keep) — some notability has been shown (though not as much as some of the others out of this batch); the AfD is split enough to warrant a no consensus. — Deckiller 13:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SiteFrame

SiteFrame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Keep. I was not around to actually see the prod being inserted in my watchlist. Now I see it go on VFD. Well, I've added a few more secondary sources to backup the article. I believe that it should be kept. It is at least included as a script (albeit an old version) in
  ^Talk 00:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. One of the fundamental points about notability is that it is not inherited. Jackaranga 14:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Reliable sources: [9] [10] JulesH 16:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 00:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

UNITED-NUKE

UNITED-NUKE (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Website Baker

Website Baker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod, but this article has been around awhile with many editors so it should be afd'ed not prod'ed. Prod tag was

• Delete The article fails
  Kylohk 00:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- KTC 03:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete For the same reasons as those for which I proded it. Jackaranga 14:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

List of most popular electronic components

List of most popular electronic components (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

WP:NOT Indiscriminate information. Whatever the intended purpose of this list (a type of online catalog list, according to the talk page), this doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Saikokira 23:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pretty subjective list, Can't wp:v on "most popular", :NOT applies as well. Pharmboy 00:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename As the inclusion criterion of "Most popular" is too vague, the list should not have been created. Otherwise, it should somehow be converted into a list of the most widely used cmoponents, with reliable sources backing their adoption, etc.--
  Kylohk 01:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Is this list compiled by purely
  WP:OR ? Corpx 05:17, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Like Corpx, I'm seeing OR. --Moonriddengirl 17:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Mandsford 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It would have made some sense if if provided context information but the current text is just bunch of product names. Pavel Vozenilek 23:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twin Air

Twin Air (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Weak Delete no notability. Only found trivial mentions about this company Corpx 05:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and Corpx. General aviation as a topic is notable, but individual charters are not; notability is not inherited. Bearian 00:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Bridges Community Academy

Bridges Community Academy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod (notability), but it's been around over a year and is school related so may be controversial, so taken to afd. I agree with the prod-er that it fails

• Keep What is supposed to be the problem? It's notable of course. LukeHoC 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete small school with no "significant coverage" from independent sources. I cant pull up the first link as the site is down, but even then it require more sources to establish notability Corpx 05:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Been here long ebough to expand but really hasn't been with all those edits. It comes across like an ad to me.--Amadscientist 04:55, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.
  Notability requires that "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - at this point it doesn't look like this article meets that standard. -- MarcoTolo 03:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take Flight Charters

Take Flight Charters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

Delete No assertion of notability; nothing readily available. --Moonriddengirl 17:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete per above and other such general aviation afd's, they are not generally notable. However, this one is marginally notable - it has charters to Cuba, and I have heard of it. Bearian 00:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Flight Schedule Cibao Intl

Flight Schedule Cibao Intl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Goes against

Comment This article has been speedied twice in June and has had the nameplace locked to prevent recreation, originally at Cibao Airport Flight Schedule --Russavia 02:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, i whant to know what is the problem with this article, what bad thing it have and what can i do to become this article in an apropiate article for wikipedia??? Just because i haven´t seen any other article that shows the Cibao Airport Flight Activity and i realy whant to let people to know what is going on in this airport...

Could you help me??? Migssant19 21:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as with such schedules generally. Not encyclopedic in any sense. DGG (talk) 03:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article has encyclopedic sense, tell me why you say that it doesn´t have any? i keep without understand why is it bad??

It doesn´t matter that it was deleted in may, look at the article, what are the differents, yess, that the old one just have a box info, this one have the box info and some things that have importance in thia airport, you don´t think so???

I whant to know too how can i save it, or change it to an ``encyclopedic sense´´ if it realy doesn´t have any. i realy don´t whant you to delete this article, it was hurt for me to add it. Migssant19 04:04, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There's no notability established for flight schedule of this airport Corpx 05:21, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Honestly, this type of information would be better suited to the company's website, where it can be maintained by them, so that people do not rely on inaccurate schedules. Abeg92contribs 14:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this is not what Wikipedia was intended for. Wikipedia may not be paper but it's still an encyclopedia. Most of this info changes so often that the schedule is bound to be incorrect unless someone is carefully checking it periodically which, let's face it, will not happen and this belongs on the airport's website. Pascal.Tesson 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ok delete that sht. You´re right guys this is responsability of the Cibao International Airport Corportation in its website. But you think guys that the other part (Notes) of this article may be in Cibao Intl article or can stay in this article with another name??

Migssant19 01:25, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing in here to merge, it's all about this airport's scheduling information. This doesn't belong here. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of Canterbury Commerce Society (UCom)

University of Canterbury Commerce Society (UCom) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No assertion of notability. Nothing links to it. Bduke 23:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletions. -- Bduke 23:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Agree with nom, almost a speedy. - SimonLyall 23:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.-gadfium 02:20, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, two non-wikipedia results from google [11]. With a lack of any other evidence supplied for keeping, means I support deletion. Mathmo ^Talk 02:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student societies are not notable. Timrollpickering 10:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Reluctant to say delete on such a short stub after less than a month of life, but no case for note/
  talk 21:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yeah, that sums up my feelings well. Mathmo ^Talk 08:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep ~

Usherette Trixie (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

This article is the only remaining character article existing on characters from "The Rocky Horror Show". It is a non-notable character and in fact may not be a character at all. No references are cited or can be found to substantiate the claims made on the page. Amadscientist 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not notable enough to keep. Not sourced or referenced. Information can be added to "The Rocky Horror Show"--Amadscientist 00:03, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Amadscientist. --Moonriddengirl 17:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - the character certainly exists. "Unsourced" doesn't mean "unsourcable" and as the only character from the stage show not to carry over to the film Trixie has some encyclopedic significance. In the alternative, merge this and other character articles into a List of Rocky Horror characters. Otto4711 13:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - No, the character really does not exist. Usherette is merely the character of Magenta in another costume. None of the scripts name the usherette. References that do mention this state clearly that only the costume or prop carried by the actress has given a name to any particular production. In the original London production they "called" her "Miss Strawberry time" because of the markings on the tray that was carried. In the Roxie production they called her Trixie due to the name placed on the costume.( Neither was in any official capacity.) However to call it a character is simply incorrect and not factual as the script does not give it a name and most importantly there is no credit for the character. Wish all you want but Usherette Trixie is not an actual character. Also there simply are no other characters with articles other than Brad and Janet and they face deletion as well. All other character articles have long been deleted and redirected.--Amadscientist 03:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but it is simply not accurate to claim that an actor in a different costume is not playing different parts. For instance, the original Belasco Theatre production and the production that debuted November 2000 list the usherettes as separate characters. Otto4711 16:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for showing that, however I don't know that that proves anything as both credtis are different. The 1975 prodoction is the same cast from the Roxie. The costume gave her the name and It was not credited there. The 2000 production does not give the Usherete a name again. It is Magenta in another costume and even Patricia Quinn qestioned whether or not it was a seperate character and she created Magenta. It is not accurate to start a page for "Usherette Trixie" when it was only credited in a single production of literally hundreds of proffessional productions. You would also need a page for Miss Strawberry time and for just Usherete.

• If there are reliable sources that discuss the character, the name issue, Quinn's confusion, etc. then what else do you think is needed for an encyclopedia article? Move it to
  Usherette (Rocky Horror) if having "Trixie" in the title bothers you. The deletion of the articles for other characters has no bearing on this article. Otto4711 16:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Josh Armstrong and Joshua Armstrong

Josh Armstrong (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

2 Google hits for '"joshua armstrong" "passion food"', One hit for '"josh armstrong" "passion food"'. Fails

• Delete per nom; fails
  WP:BIO. --Muchness 23:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom;Deserved a speedy. Why did you take the slow route?Kww 00:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - if there's an assertion of notability, however tenuous, the article should be
    prodded or listed at AFD. --Muchness 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Exactly. A leader in gourmet catering and culinary management consulting is a claim of notability. Corvus cornix 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that it couldn't die under db-bio, but I wouldn't hesitate to flag it db-spam. Kww 02:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Did you notice the name is misspelled in the article? Bearian 00:22, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D

The Science of Sunlight and Vitamin D (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired prod left by author but objected to, so I'll call it a contested prod. Prod based on "NN book by NN author. xlibris.com is a self-publishing house", with which I agree, per

• Delete I placed that prod. The article is the exposition of the content of the book at great length. The sources for notability are blurbs on the cover, which are not reviews, and do not count as notability for anything. DGG (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral Might have used as a wikilink for
  suntanning if I had known it existed. That would end the 'dead end' issue. Not sure how to apply policy in this case, so not taking a stand on del/kep. Sounds like an interesting read tho. Pharmboy 00:31, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep The sources for notability are the references contained in the bibliography of the book.--Jamesonjon 06:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's no evidence the book is notable. The blurb on the book cover is under the control of the author, so we still don't have any independent verification that any
  reliable source considers the book notable. (Note: if kept, should be renamed to the title of the book.) --Alvestrand 13:09, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I noticed a few other cites referencing the book per wikipedia. Again, not sure this would meet notability issue. Can't find the obvious hits for notability for the book. Pharmboy 15:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean that other sites are pointing to Wikipedia's book description, or something else? I can't quite figure out the sentence - but if so, this might be a reason for someone to place the Wikipedia article in the first place: to give the impression of an authoritative place with information about the book. --Alvestrand 17:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Other sites using Wikipedia's article verbatim, which isn't a particularly strong case. Pharmboy 18:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Author didn't want to include "prostate cancer" in the title of the article, which is the main reason one might be interested in reading about this. The book author had a reason for putting that in the title. This might merit a mention in another article about prostate cancer or Vitamin D, but no merge necessary somewhere. Mandsford 17:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it doesn't look like as an encyclopedic article to me. It fits more to a popular science magazine. -- Magioladitis 05:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. NN, book by a
  sourced. Bearian 00:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Non-notable book, per Amazon.co.uk ranking of 1,788,143 [12] & Amazon.com ranking of #2,187,098 [13] and no evidence of independent high-quality reviews, awards etc. Espresso Addict 17:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:28, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charter Flights Caribbean

Charter Flights Caribbean (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- → AA ^(talk) — 23:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Spam sorry to say Shoessss |  Chat  23:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable commercial company. --Moonriddengirl 17:19, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:21, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buildings breeding

Buildings breeding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable band exists more on the internet than anywhere else. Someone removed the speedy delete tag, said they could make a case for notability. This is their chance. Speciate 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete--that is: delete unless somebody has more luck finding notability on this band that I have. The page claims that "the band’s album debuted at #6 on the charts for CMJ (College Music Journal) and stayed in the top 100 for nearly two months." I tried a search on CMJ but it said "No review, news or feature matches for Buildings breeding." I don't see an option for searching historical charts. --Moonriddengirl 23:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. They're signed to
  WP:BAND yet. Corvus cornix 23:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. -

Scream (Slipknot song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Album cut by Slipknot which doesn't seem to have any special reason for notability other than the fact that it was a hidden track. No single release, music video or chart action here, and this info can easily be placed into the album article. Infobox is also incorrect (studio album template used). - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into album article or band website and Delete. Though the song section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) is only a guideline and not official policy, it seems to fail on all counts. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - notability is not inherited, and no separate notability is demonstrated for this song. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the nomination as this song is not individually notable.
  Burntsauce 17:33, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Not notable, unsourced. Sr13 is almost

Opium of the People (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Album track by Slipknot. No single release, video or chart activity, and the article really doesn't say anything. THe infobox is also incorrect here (studio album infobox used) - eo 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Though the song section of Wikipedia:Notability (music) is only a guideline and not official policy, it seems to fail on all counts. --Moonriddengirl 17:24, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete - notability is not inherited, and no separate notability is demonstrated for this song. Also, article is unsourced. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:26, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I agree completely with Ericorbit. Its pointless to have an article for it.--James599 20:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Pulse detonation wave engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Delete No reliable sources discuss this. Research is being done on a different propulsion system with the same name, although it's possible that that's just what they want us to think... ObiterDicta ( pleadings • errata • appeals ) 23:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as prodder; article only cites "rumours" which falls somewhat short of
  WP:V. Sandstein 05:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Sigh. Can we please stop with the government cover-up agenda for just a few minutes?--WaltCip 15:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete:
  WP:RS and WP:NUTBAR. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete—list of in-universe concepts that shows no real-world importance. Some of this information could be merged into other articles, so the list will be userfied. If and when the information is merged, the article will be restored as a redirect to Star Destroyer. — Deckiller 14:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Destroyers

List of Star Destroyers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Merge and redirect to Star Destroyer. Nyttend 23:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete article and oppose merge to Star Destroyer. None of the content in this List of... asserts real-world impact or notability. Star Destroyer has recently been cleared of lots of in-universe trivia such as random ship names; plopping this list's information would be a large step in the wrong direction. Full disclosure: I did the initial prod on this list, and have done most of the weed-whacking at Star Destroyer. --EEMeltonIV 02:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely in universe content with no real world coverage. Corpx 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested by Nyttend. I respect that Star Wars has a mass following, but no reason that this list (drawn mainly from novels, not the films) needs to exist on its own. Mandsford 17:39, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - unencyclopedic.--Amadscientist 04:58, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Is there any reason not to transwiki this to Wookieepedia? Why destroy the good-faith effort of several Star Wars fans if it can be just as easily moved to a more appropriate GFDL-licensed wiki? DHowell 01:37, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Maybe send to Wookieepedia.It does not belong here. None of the content in this list asserts real-world impact or notability. -- SECisek 19:00, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Martin Holmgren

Martin Holmgren (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable judging from the content. Likely created by himself.

• Userfy -
  Magnus Holmgren 22:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete wikipedia is not Myspace. Bigdaddy1981 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Seems to fail Wikipedia:notability (music). --Moonriddengirl 17:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per nom. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Likely a vanity article. LuciferMorgan 18:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a vanity autobiography, only contribution by the creator. I userfied the content. Bearian 00:34, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete all. Kurykh 01:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gulabo and other Pakistani films

Gulabo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Jhoomar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Ishq Badshah (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Sohni Kurri Chann Wargi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

expired uncontested prod but possibly a controversial delete, as sources not likely to be found in English and notable stars if sourcing proves out the claim, but mindful of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I looked at all four articles, and Carlos has properly nominated these as a group. They all essentially say that "______ is a Pakistani film. It stars __________". While I'm sure that there are some great Pakistani films, the article gives us no clue about whether Gulabo is another "Gone With the Wind" or another "Godzilla 1985". Mandsford 17:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Only so much you can say about something you can't find references on.--Amadscientist 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

New Flight Charters

New Flight Charters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

• Delete - Not a single secondary source. I agree, it's borderline spam and there's an apparent
  WP:COI issue as well. I looked for sources on my own, but could find none. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 22:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy - G11; spammy, and far from
  WP:CORP. — Coren ^(talk) 22:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete G11 (spam). Reads promotionally. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• not speedy --it clearly isnt obvious to all of us--I removed the speedy once and it should not have been put back. I think it's a weak keep, if sources can be found, and the point of an afd is to discuss the matter and let them be found. as an apparently notable company -- that it is a consolidator rather than an actual operator does not necessarily make it non-notable. DGG (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't you think that as the nominator that I checked for reliable, non-trival sources which would have given this company some degree of notability before putting it up for Afd? --Russavia 03:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Additionally, it fits in with

WP:CSD as being blatant advertising. I would also point you to this article [14] which is also up for nomination again, and which was marked speedy, and had that removed by yourself, even though I mentioned in the Afd that this page [15] has been protected to prevent creation afer the creator created once again after being deleted. Why is it that others can see this yet you can't? --Russavia 04:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weak delete. It gets a lotta Ghits - over 600- [16], but only one real review by a San Diego business journal in the top few dozens. Marginal notability. Bearian 00:40, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Nifong Party

Nifong Party (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable term. No assertion of notability. Internet search reveals no reliable sources Chunky Rice 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete Seems to be racist as well. -- Gravitan^{(Talk | Contribs)} 22:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete - I found this [17] editorial, but no other references to the term. Appears to be a POV pushing article at this point, unless the terminology gains more widespread coverage/usage. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 22:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; hoaxy goodness, and
  point pushing. — Coren ^(talk) 22:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom Bigdaddy1981 22:41, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for notability, and general hate-filled point making. Pharmboy 00:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for aggressive attack. I'd previously flagged one of her articles for the same thing,
  Benea 01:30, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete POV, unsourced. Acroterion _(talk) 02:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest adding
  race baiting to this deletion - wikipedia isn't a dictionary and that's all that this article is fit for. Bigdaddy1981 04:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While I wouldn't object to its deletion, the issues are dissimilar enough that I don't think a joint nomination would make sense. Plus, this one is already underway. -Chunky Rice 05:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you are right, perhaps i'll prod that one when I've a minute. Bigdaddy1981 06:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Tellingly, the article says it is a term for the
  Democrat Party, rather than the Democratic Party (an incorrect construction that Republicans use deliberately because they think it annoys Democrats). --Dhartung | Talk 10:14, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment I am not sure if using a GOP stereotype in the reasoning is helpful to the conversation. Pharmboy 15:06, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is telling of POV, though. — Coren ^(talk) 15:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jump Naruto Stars

Jump Naruto Stars (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Article is about an unreleased video game, I believe it fails to establish notability. I {{prod}}'d it and the user removed it. I was initially tempted to mark it speedy, but want to give the editor a chance to establish its notability. Seems doubtful. Douglasmtaylor ^T/C 22:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; borderline spam for a non-notable future game. Wikipedia
  is not Freshmeat. — Coren ^(talk) 22:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Game-related-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, non-notable fangame. When stuff like this gets coverage in reputable, fact-checked magazines and websites, then it'll warrant an article. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 00:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep but I will stubify the article since all of it is completely unsourced. Pascal.Tesson 19:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Etienne Saqr

Etienne Saqr (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Expired uncontested prod, but likely to be controversial deletion on prod basis alone, so I'm bringing it here. There are lots of claims and little support for them, so

• Delete; if the unsupported claims are edited out, what's left with a stub with no claim of notability. — Coren ^(talk) 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep: This person is notable by virtue of having been a prominent politician and warlord during the Lebanese Civil War. He is very much more prominent than many British and American legislators who have biographies on Wikipedia. I do think we should improve the article with source material, however. David Cannon 23:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A Lebanese warlord, not as powerful as some others, but notable enough. --Groggy Dice T | C 19:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GroggyDice and DavidCannon. Bearian 00:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TribalCMS

TribalCMS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

The wikibooks link is fake also, there are no wikibooks related to the page. Jackaranga 22:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - G11; spam with fake links to establish notability. — Coren ^(talk) 22:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per norm. KTC 03:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the WIKIBOOKS link, that was meant to be just to CMS but I removed it altogether. I do not know where this idea of unrelated link comes from. Go to goodmanjones.com and SEE POWERED BY TRIBALCMS. grrr. This is not spam.......— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilkesalex (talk • contribs)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Ormand himself may be notable, and it may make sense to discuss the cup in an article about the doctor. Without reliable sources we can't do much. If anyone has issues with similar cups having other articles with little sourcing, I suggest you either try to source them or AfD them. They are not what is being discussed here. To be very clear since this discussion seems to involve some people not as familiar with wikipedia policies. If there are

Ormand Cup

Ormand Cup (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable sporting event for local sailing club. Exactly six Google hits: two for this article, two others from the organization's website. Tries to link notability to the namesake of the cup, "who was a friend of President Franklin D. Roosevelt and Alfred E. Smith", according to the article. Realkyhick 21:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, notability not established, and there don't seem to be any sources available to do so. - Zeibura ^(Talk) 21:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Interestingly enough I found 11 google hits, not including hits that apply to subdivisions of the same website (Which would bring the total to 25). However, arguing that something is not notable just because it does not have many google hits is not much better than arguing that something is not notable because it does not appear in wikipedia. I also feel that Randall O should be given the chance to improve the article. After all, I have noted articles which are less notable than this one, yet which have been been kept, seemingly because they are well organised and presented. Moreover, I have noticed that Randall O has contributed significantly to wikipedia (Especially with regards to articles on the British aristocracy) and I therefore think it would be counterproductive to scare him off; after all, what harm does it really do if wikipedia contains articles that cover topics that are not overly famous? Wouldn't it be more productive to direct our resources to improving the quality of wikipedia articles, and countering genuine problems such as patent nonsense and vandalism?

And Zeibura, why are you using google news to attempt prove your point; just because something isn't newsworthy, hardly makes it unimportant. Otherwise most of history would be of no value.

Matisia 08:02, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might i add something here, the site on Almeda Calfornia is not complete and i,am sure someone will add to it and to Dr. Charles Ormand for whom the cup is named. WiKi needs more on boating and yachting, which it lacks. The Lord Stanley Cup is widely known, but yatching cups and awards are lacking on WiKi. why remove boating and yachting awards and cups. After all yachting is an olympic event. Also President Franklin Delano Roosevelt was a yachtsman and was a close friend of his. Randall O 08:47, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O I vote to keep it myself.[reply]

• Comment: It seems were are drifting off somewhat to whether or not Dr. Ormand is notable. That is not the issue here. It is whether or not the award given to the winner of a local (apparently) competition is notable, which I argue it isn't.
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument, as has been stated in AfD discussions many, many times. I don't dispute that the original author has made contributions in the past. I also think that Dr. Ormand may be notable enough for his own article, if proper sources can be found. BTW, comparing a local yachting award to the Stanley Cup is a bit much. Realkyhick 22:38, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: The issue is, there are other articles on Wiki such as the One Ton Cup and the Monsoon Cup which are included and might i add, with just as little information. Several New Zealand boating and yachting associations are listed on Wiki. This being the case, why are the associations in the San Francisco Bay area being excluded from Wikipedia? There are only a few in the bay area. But one of the yachts in the bay area will try for the America's Cup. Also might i add the San Francisco Bay area, is the home of several million people. I have made contact with the commodore of the Islander 36 Association for pictures and more information. Also Wikipedia does not have one yacht club or association in the San Francisco Bay area. Does this mean they wish to exclude the whole bay area? Wikipedia also has few or any lists of cups or awards for yachting and boating.

Keep Randall O 08:28, 5 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O[reply]

• Comment: I have to agree with Randall O here that although San Francisco Bay is 'local' in the sense that it is only a relatively small area geographically, it is certainly not deficient in terms of population; this is not a cup awarded to some village sports team!

Matisia 08:51, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How do we know it's not just a local trophy? There are no independent sources to indicate either way. There's no conspiracy to exclude San Fransisco anything — I would hold the same opinion if the locale was San Diego or Newport or Perth. As for the other cups given as examples (ignoring
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS for a moment), the One Ton Cup is awarded for a world championship for a class, thus clearly notable; the Monsoon Cup was intiated by a head of state and is part of a widely recognized international tour, also clearly notable. If you can show sources which prove that the Ormand Cup rises to the same level of prestige and notability as either of these two, I will gladly reconsider. Realkyhick 19:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - there are no reliable sources found. A notable trophy would likely have generated news coverage in at least the local papers but none are found in Google News. Searching the web doesn't seem to turn up any reliable sources either. -- Whpq 21:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - As the Islander 36 Association governers all Class 1-36 yachts in the San Francisco Bay area regardless of the sponsoring groups or associations. Under the One Design-Class Associations ODCA Randall O 08:57, 6 August 2007 (UTC) Randall O[reply]
• Week Delete Does not appear notable. Harlowraman 22:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete article desperately using possibly notable subject (i.e. Charles Ormand) as a
  COATRACK-like tool to justify its presence on Wiki... --Aarktica 01:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. --Ixfd64 22:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Air Pink

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletions. -- the wub "?!" 23:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 17:32, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Amadscientist 05:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Unlikely to find any reliable sources. Bearian 00:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Hawaii Vacations

Great Hawaii Vacations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Fails

Delete or inshrine just might be the most boring article I've ever seen on Wikipedia, save it quickly, please. KP Botany 23:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for advert from non notable company. Pharmboy 00:37, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are thousands of articles of small companies in Wikipedia. I cleaned it up, and additional sources can be found. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:23, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and as they are found, they are deleted via afd for WP:N policy. This is just one more in the long list. "There are more like it" is NOT a valid reason to keep an article (per policy). Pharmboy 16:29, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What source? I don't see any references or sources listed, other than their own advertisement, their website. What clean-up? It still looks utterly dreadful. Anyone who uses this travel agency AND reads other Wikipedia articles will see it for what it clearly is: a desperate and poorly done attempt at free advertising. It's embarrassing. KP Botany 18:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - My god there are a lot of ad articles. We really must put our foot down on this sort of thing. Dump it!--Amadscientist 05:04, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:CORP -- Whpq 21:22, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above, contra Jossi's argument that
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Bearian 00:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lea Martini

Lea Martini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Doesn't pass WP:PORNBIO. Epbr123 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Tabercil 22:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Moonriddengirl 17:34, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Amadscientist 05:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 20:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep, no point in keeping this open. Consensus and

Eddie Bockman

Eddie Bockman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This is another former baseball player who did nothing in his career. It appears that the user creating these articles is doing so to add players to Category:Pittsburgh Pirates players. Eggy49er 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Do you have some vendetta against Pittsburgh Pirates players (or New York Yankees players)? This fellow played in Major League Baseball, and his biography is nicely referenced. I don't see what the problem is. Shalom ^Hello 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I do not see a problem with the bio. Bockman was part of a key trade in major league baseball, a multisport star, a minor league manager, a major league player who was a member of three teams, and a California athlete whose career was covered closely in high school, the minors, and majors by the Los Angeles Times.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sr13 is almost

Liberty Implements

Liberty Implements (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I looked on google, and I wasn't able to find a lot of references to this organization. I believe that it fails all the provisions of

• Delete per nom. It's a small company (46 employees), not known outside its narrow field. Shalom ^Hello 19:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Clearly an ad.--Amadscientist 05:12, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above and as
  name of the creating editor is a conflict of interest. Bearian 00:50, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete for above reasons --Greatest hits 08:10, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. All major league players are notable per

Erv Brame

Erv Brame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

He isn't a notable player at all. His record was 52-37. He won zero awards. He wasn't a on a title contender and he did nothing notable. Eggy49er 19:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Pleanty of reliable sources out there, according to a quick Google search. Place on {{cleanup}}. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm not doubting that he exists, but he isn't notable. He did nothing in his career.Eggy49er 19:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't think so-[18]. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep. Carlossuarez46 17:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2001 Eastern North America heat wave

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

Strong Delete. Non-noteable event. The article read like a story. There are no references or other links provided and I have not found one myself while surfing over the internet for the past 10 minutes. Even if we could find sources-there are many heatwaves across the world every week, just because it happened in America does not make it noteable. Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK)'s FA plea-please have your say! 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Just because there's not a lot of articles on non-U.S. heat waves is no reason to not make articles for U.S. heatwaves. It's a reason to make articles for non-U.S. heat waves. bob rulz 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. non-notable, no citations.

Keep. Notable event. It does need sourcing, though. Not being sourced is no reason to delete something; it's a reason to find sources for it. bob rulz 01:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep and source. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:11, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JForget, bobrulz, and Norton. Of course it was notable, although the August 2003 heatwave was worse in terms of body count and the blackout, if I recall. Bearian 00:53, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - There are now sufficient references, and it is evidently a notable event that has received attention from reliable sources. — xDanielx^Talk 22:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:09, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Townend

Sam Townend (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

British parliamentary candidate for next election. No

• Delete Candidates are not inherently notable. Also, for a candidate there is particular concern for
  WP:COI, especially because Sunderland chick (talk · contribs) has no edits outside this article. Shalom ^Hello 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete My reading of
  WP:BIO is that Members of Parliament are inherently notable but candidates are not. That seems reasonable otherwise we would have thousands of articles about parliamentary candidates, very few of who go on to be known outside the locality where they stood or are going to stand for office. There are exceptions of course (e.g. Screaming Lord Sutch who filled many newspaper columns!) but these are few and far between. Sam Townend seems to be just another unremarkable parliamentary candidate, I'm afraid. --Malcolmxl5 19:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - if he wins, then recreate. Bigdaddy1981 22:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above comments about Sam Townend's entry would seem fair except for the fact that Charlotte Leslie, the Conservative candidate for the same seat has an entry. If Sam's article should be deleted, then so should that of his main opponent. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rpchambe (talk • contribs) 08:47, August 7, 2007 (UTC).

• Comment See
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'll have a look at Charlotte Leslie's article and take appropriate steps. --Huon 10:06, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ramsus Palantiri

Ramsus Palantiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Poorly written article on a contemporary wrestler. No references. Only 250 Google hits. Not notable. Shalom ^Hello 19:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Nikki311 19:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. —Nikki311 19:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Darrenhusted 20:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No categorys. No wikification. No verification. No notable promotions. No links to other pages. No NPOV. No need for this to be here. --SteelersFan UK06 04:35, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete oh lord talk about NOT being notable or verifiable nor having a snowballs chance in hell of being either. Just get rid of it MPJ-DK 07:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as nn-bio. JPG-GR 23:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Carlossuarez46 17:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My left nutmeg

Non-notable. Delete, or perhaps use as an external link in

• Delete per nom. This is just a blog which is not covered by major news organisations. The
  self-promotion. MKoltnow 19:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Not notable at all. Just promotion.--Amadscientist 05:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as it was influential in last year's election (Lamont v. Lieberman), and quoted extensively in
  reliable sources can be found. Bearian 00:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the nomination, absolutely not notable.
  Burntsauce 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Cool Hand Luke 07:19, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playable Characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl

Playable Characters in Super Smash Brothers Brawl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

• Delete per nom. Me5000 21:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect, if it's already covered there; it seems like a plausible title for someone to type in. Nyttend 22:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems unlikely that someone type that long title in. They'd probably type "Super Smash Bros Brawl" instead. Either way, this information is already covered. Useight 23:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect; as an article, it cannot possibly remain
  within guidelines, but redirects are free. — Coren ^(talk) 23:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Implausible title and
  Burntsauce 18:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect per Nyttend. Mathmo ^Talk 22:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

M Dilla Records

M Dilla Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. In their own words "The label has yet to successfully distribute an album." Lugnuts 18:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the label does not satisfy notability per Lugnut's comments; no real references, issues with POV. May be good enough for an article later, but certainly not at this time. Zidel333 18:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I'm a music inclusionist, but this is just hopeless. Maybe someday. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete per nom. Hasn't even distributed an album yet, hopelessly fails
  WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 21:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• speedy delete as spam, and maybe even for no assertion of notability. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Drive Carefully Records

Drive Carefully Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable record label. Admits that they've only had 2 releases, one being a sampler CD. Lugnuts 18:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, perhaps with more releases can be reconsidered. Zidel333 18:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete absolutely unsourced and spam. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 is almost

Domination Recordings

Domination Recordings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non notable record label. Reads like an advert/spam. Lugnuts 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of notability and no independent sources. Deli nk 18:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Zidel333 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as spam per Lugnuts! Precious lugnuts!. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Poorly written advertisement Saget53 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Kurykh 01:08, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Containment theory records

Containment theory records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable record label. Advert/spam, only source is from MySpace. Lugnuts 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Appears to be non-notable Deli nk 18:35, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 19:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• speedy delete as spam per Lugnuts! Precious lugnuts! How did you find all these to delete, btw? Did you find a useful search string? AllGloryToTheHypnotoad 15:35, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply In part of my cleanup of all the record labels, I sometimes browse Category:Category needed and then the most recent full month - IE Category:Uncategorized from July 2007. I then just do a text search for the word "record" in the article titles in that category. There's usually a fair few in each month. A handful are good articles that just need a bit of a cleanup, but the vast majority are in the advert/spam bracket, and I AFD them. Or maybe I should use my What-If machine... Lugnuts 17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep JoshuaZ 01:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ATutor

ATutor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion based on lack of notability. User:Varezzi

• This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 17:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: This article topic is a core element at the intersection of

If this article gets deleted under WP:N, while all the other stuff at Category:Flash games (for example) remains, it will be an absolute slap in the face to the credibility of this project. dr.ef.tymac 17:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Despite the
  WP:USEFUL argument, I say Delete because I see nothing proving the notability of this software. If it's so widely used, it should be able to have plenty of sources. Nyttend 17:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: The bit about WP:USEFUL doesn't seem to even apply here. Perhaps you can clarify. Additionally, your (unsubstantiated) implication of "not widely used" seems to disregard that a software title can be notable regardless of whether it is used at all.[1]

How can that be? Simple:

* It has encyclopedic and historical relevance outside the scope of its direct use;

* It features prominently in a dispute over the practices, methods, legalities and patterns of ownership in a major industry or segment of society; or

* It relates to matters that cannot be readily observed or researched by reference to an ancillary article on the same or similar subject.

All three of these apply to this article topic. (See e.g., [19], [20], [21])

The issues of

WP:USEFUL, or how "widely used" the software package happens to be. dr.ef.tymac 18:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment... and people wonder why established media outlets openly ridicule the way WP:N is applied. This is a perfect example. You call my remarks "disisengenuous" ... and yet you offer: Oh yeah, and (Napster is) still used, even if the program isn't identical ... uhh yeah, right ... same name but, totally different company, totally different business model, totally different legal status, but yeah, uhh, it's "still in use" ... yeah and I guess the USA still has prohibition if you count the fact that four year olds still cannot legally buy alcohol. Yeah, right.

Even if I grant the premise that Napster-now has nothign to do with Napster-then, Napster-then still generated an exponentially greater amount of media attention than ATutor has. Napster was on TV. Napster was on radio. Napster sparked the ire of the recording industry, and was the big target they aimed at the entire time. It revolutionized music sharing. ATutor has no similar claim. The second half of your argument is an ad absurdum that bears no resemblance at all to the issue at hand.Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it? Pure hogwash: Hogwash 67,500+ times over.

Did you even look at the links? The first one, Trailfire, is a search site that's trying to steal ad traffic by listing searchable phrases. The second mirrors the first, the third article (written entirely about Blackboard and their exploits) mentions ATutor once, in a list with four other programs. Next we have a statement from a university tech service that mentions ATutor once and gives no detail about the program or commentary on it. After that is a blog, then another trivial mention in a list of e-learning products, then a single mention in a multiple-choice quiz with no critical merit or inference of notability. Then a blog. Then another blog. Then another ad site. Then two more trivial mentions (one single reference to "ATutor" in a list of five programs, with no critical mention or commentary on ATutor itself), then two list-servs, then two forum posts, then two blogs. None of that is acceptable per WP:N, and like it or not, that's one of the core principles of Wikipedia. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, from your quick overview of that small sampling of links you gave, you seem to be refuting your own remark that "the only people talking about ATutor are the ones who made it". Shall I assume you now recant that incorrect statement? Now, if you want to take two steps backward and assert that those blogs and whatnot are insufficient under

WP:V, you might have a point and I might actually be inclined to agree with you. So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention". (A term I think you are grossly mis-applying, since your application makes no allowance for proportionality of the mention relative to the coverage and depth of the article itself). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From

WP:SPS. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources." Emphasis mine. As for the second half of your comment, ad hominem. Stop that. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Napster was revolutionary and the same can't be said for ATutor? Totally irrelevant.

The Hampster Dance

. You trying to tell me that WP only has articles on revolutionary software titles? If so, that's more hogwash. Moreover, it's bias toward topics that tend to appeal to young children as opposed to professors and administrators in secondary and post-secondary education. Isn't NPOV supposed to be "non negotiable"? All bets are off when we are talking about article topics in general?

This is a straw man. I never said that only revolutionary software should be covered; my argument is that articles require verifiability and notability to merit inclusion, and ATutor is severely lacking in the latter. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a straw man, then what was your point in stating the (obvious) fact that ATutor is not on the same par with Napster? What's with all the "Napster was on TV!" "Napster changed the world!". If this is a strawman, then all these points you brought up must have been irrelevant to begin with. The only reason I brought up Napster to begin with was make a very simple point (which you happen to agree with down below): that usage stats are not the only standard for software notability (since "Napster-then" as you like to call it, is now totally defunct). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi]. Your refutation of this is a non-issue, since it doesn't address the original question of verifiability and reliable sources. The point in the comparison is that Napster deserves an article, and ATutor does not. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

As far as your point about Blackboard, you acknowledge that it passes your "notability" test, but the prominently cited examples of potentially-infringing software count as "trivial reference"? With all due respect, this response has zero credibility. If someone wanted to gain insight on quality of Blackboard's patent claims, where would they go for comparative research? Where would they go to find out about the validity and value of their pledge not to challenge open source projects? dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another

WP:N demands that "sources address the subject directly in detail," and these articles don't. They address Blackboard. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something? There are literally thousands of software titles comparable to BlackBoard, ATutor, and Moodle. Many of which have never seen the light of day outside local school districts. The fact that ATutor gets mentioned at all (and consistently mentioned) demonstrates notability by itself. Find me any detailed article that discusses the Blackboard patent as it relates to Open Source Software that doesn't include a mention of ATutor. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, again. To the second, "any mention at all" is insignificant unless it comes from a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy. If fifty people are talking about ATutor on their self-published web-sites, then we have to discount those voices. Allowing self-published material as an indicator of notability means we should have articles on every band with access to server space and HTML for Dummies. To the third, negative proof. And beyond that, articles that talk about Blackboard and its patent war are justification for an article about Blackboards patent war. I've made this argument quite a few times now, and you can't seem to reply to it. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If ATutor is indeed a piece of unknown crap software, then that would be even *more* interesting because it would tend to make Blackboard's claims of restraint ring hollow and insincere. When you delete ATutor and articles like it, you're essentially depriving readers the opportunity to make that evaluation for themselves, at least through WP. You're also obliterating a piece of history in this particular dispute.

Wikipedia doesn't exist to "stick it to the man." If the software isn't notable, that's the end of it. It has nothing to do with the merits of a David/Goliath story or an evil Blackboard conspiracy. Furthermore, claiming that ATutor's inclusion in Wikipedia is necessary to advocate against Blackboard is an outright

WP:CRYSTAL has something to say about keeping the article because it might be notable later. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Who said anything about "sticking it to the man"? Who said anything about Blackboard being evil? You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head that bears little or no relevance to a neutral, emotionally-detached and objective weighing of *all* material that may be relevant in the well-documented and ongoing dispute regarding intellectual property. I said there's a dispute, I didn't say which side was Goliath, I didn't even say there *was* a Goliath, I said readers should have the opportunity to evaluate that for themselves Go back and read what I said. You seem to be the only one here "taking sides". I'm sure there are many interpretations of who is right in this particular dispute, I offered only one possible interpretation that showed how ATutor could be notable even when the software itself is evaluated in the light least favorable to the people who made the software. This is a point that seems completely lost on you. NPOV is concerned with representing all views clearly and impartially. (emphasis not in original). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ad hominem, again. That's three. And again, the argument gives no answer to the original notability quandry.

How much you wanna bet researchers in this area would want to get an idea of prior art? How much you wanna bet they would want to know the history behind the development of Learning Management Systems? How much you wanna bet that all those so called "trivial" mentions would be considered crucial to anyone doing serious investigation in this area?

I'm pretty sure that any serious researcher isn't going to start his investigation by thinking to himself, "I wonder what Wikipedia has to say about this." But that's beside the point. Wikipedia isn't a publisher of original thought, and our job is not to establish the record for a company or a product or an idea. That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate. If an article or three that fulfills the requirements of WP:N and WP:V pops up that does discuss the history of LMS and clearly delineates ATutor's role in that history, then we're good. Until then, it doesn't belong here. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to. And, if you are claiming that WP:RS has not been met, that's fine, but you're then changing the analysis to one of credibility of cites, and *not* notability. The latter is a recognized basis for wholesale deletion, the former is not.

Fourth ad hominem. The discussion of credibility is an important one, and Wikipedia agrees. The entire reason we abide by doctrine in

WP:RS is because credibility matters. Newspapers are built on credibility, because people don't buy a newspaper that doesn't tell the truth. In the same way, Wikipedia does not allow citations from sources of questionable repute -- to include blogs and self-published sources -- because there is no evidence of credibility. We don't quote the crazy corner who shouts about mythical government conspiracies and then make an an article about said conspiracy because he's not a reliable source. Consequentially 08:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't comparing ATutor to Napster in terms of usage, I was however, making the point that the user stats for a particular software package is not the only meaningful consideration. This is a point that a serious researcher in this area would readily understand; and a point that that some here on WP seem content to totally ignore. dr.ef.tymac 01:45, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. But this is a red herring, because the argument all along is that ATutor doesn't make any claim towards notability, including a large user base. Because a large user base would invariably generate third-party content, and then we wouldn't be having this discussion. Consequentially 05:48, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YAY! You seem to be getting it! Total end-users isn't the end-all, be-all of software notability. That's the only reason why I mentioned Napster (what you call "Napster-then"). That was exactly my point. This is why you can dispense with the (too obvious to mention) fact that ATutor is not on TV, not in the movies, and not changing the way people think about the universe or whatever. This is *not* the "threshold for inclusion" for WP. Even if the software were totally defunct (as is the case with what you call "Napster-then") that is not a conclusive basis for deletion under WP:N. dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoratio elenchi. Your twisting of the original argument fails to address the questions raised. How is it that I'm talking about WP:RS again?

• Keep as per dr.ef.tymac,
  WP:SENSE. --xDanielx^Talk 01:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Consequentially, you've provided plenty jabs at web-links suggesting notability for ATutor. You've given me plenty of high-school-forensics-friendly buzzwords like "red herring" and "straw man". You've implied that I have a problem with WP:N (instead of just a problem with its flagrant mis-application). You've even agreed with me that "total end-users is not the end-all for establishing software notability" (which is the only reason why the Napster comparison is even relevant) ... now I'm going to give you a chance to put your money where your mouth is. You said: That's the job of those mythical third-party, reliable sources that seem to be lacking in this deletion debate.

You mean reliable sources like these?

• ATutor ... makes it easy to add pedagocial devices ... that are compliant with the IMS/SCORM standard. This characteristic is useful both for the design of goal-based learning and for the personalization of learning contents^[2]

• Another popular VLE today is ATutor, which is an open-source ... solution created by a consortium of academics in Canada. (Goes on to describe the system architecture of ATutor and how it is useful to specific research in the development of Virtual Learning Environments).^[3]

• Various Open Source CMSs have been developed ... and ... Moodle and ATutor are noted for e-learning ^[4]

• Also:^[5]

Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention. With the exception of the Glasgow Conference, these quotes prove only that ATutor exists. If each of these sentences appears in a book that's 500 pages long, then it doesn't do much to assert the notability of the subject. There was a similar discussion on another deletion debate. An editor argued that a mention of a band by a famous music journalist was a demonstrator of notability and thus of inclusion. When it came to light that the article was of significant length and that the mention was only one sentence in the article, the conclusion was that it was of insufficient weight to demonstrate notability. These sources, essentially, say the same thing as this article from the search results above: that ATutor exists, and is an open-source distance learning tool. Wikipedia requires more than proof of existence. It requires proof of notability. Why is ATutor an important distance learning tool? Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As well as:

  ... the number of (LMS) has proliferated, and at least a hundred are currently available. ... 
  In evaluating 35 OSS systems, Farrell (2003) has rated ATutor and ILIAS as the best, with 
  Moodle close behind. 
  
  Michael Hotrum and Brian Ludwig
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University

The Hotrum quote is interesting, but misleading. This article is a "Technical Evaluation Report" , also known as software review, only its a software review by a professor, and it's not even about ATutor. From the first sentence of the review, "The ILIAS learning management system (LMS) was evaluated, following its favourable rating in an independent evaluation study of open source software (OSS) products." The professor sets up a curriculum with ILIAS, then asks a group of ten students to review it. They reach the conclusion that, "In comparing an ATutor course website with a simple HTML-based version of the same site, the ten students voted unanimously to retain the simpler site." It goes on to say, "None voted to move to the ATutor platform. This result was disappointing to the course instructor, who had hoped for student feedback justifying a move to the superior support that would be available for ATutor in the University. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to mention:

  Its developers claim that ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market,
  allowing access to all potential learners, course developers, instructors, and administrators,   
  including those with disabilities who may be accessing the system using assistive technologies.
  Research conducted for this report did not reveal any other software with the same functionality
  for accessibility, OSS or otherwise.
  Sharon Clark
  Masters of Distance Education Programme 
  Athabasca University
  (emphasis not in original)

Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs. The quote, which asserts only that ATutor is one of five programs that meet their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability. The article talks mostly about its features and how to install the program -- careful if you plan on doing it with Unix, as that "requires specialized server administration skills".

• You want more?

  This paper describes a project started at the Technical University of Sofia Research & 
  Development Laboratory “E-Learning Technologies” and examines implementation of Learning 
  Design in Shareable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM), open source based e-learning 
  environment ATutor.
  DSpace at Open Universiteit Nederland

  Technological and pedagogical innovation has enabled the development of virtual 
  environments that bring about the possibility of learning with others at a distance. 
  The development of these virtual environments is nowadays an expanding field of research.
  (further in the article)
  3.1 The platform used
  ... using a platform built by a LCMS (Learning Content Management System) and a Groupware. 
  The collaborative learning environment was then developed from the platforms ATutor and 
  ACollab ...
  Collaborative Learning Environments for Teacher Education
  Universidade do Minho, Braga, Portugal

The article, "Learning Design Implementation in SCORM E-Learning Environment" is a scholarly jaunt through the world of SCORM implementation in distance-learning software, which uses ATutor as its test subject. The article is a thrilling discussion of the architecture of such a system, and how students interact with database services to acquire learning units, but again, mentions ATutor only in passing.

And so, in closing, I offer this. ATutor is one of many (dozens and dozens, according to the article) of open-source distance learning tools available to the academic world, and is the subject of research by professors at Athabasca University. These discussions, which read off the features of the program and whether or not ten students like it (they don't), amount to technical reviews and not much more. I've challenged you to provide reliable sources that demonstrate the products notability -- you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do. Along the way, you've spent roughly the same amount of words (more, if you don't count quoted text) insulting me as you have arguing your case. And I'm tired. And I'm going to bed. Consequentially 09:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BONUS POINTS: If you can demonstrate familiarity with any key concepts in this subject area, and explain why all of these links are inadequate, and do so without introducing cliches from debating 101; or precisely define what you mean by "trivial mention" ... you will have done a lot to enhance your credibility in this discussion.

Try Google Scholar for plenty of references

• Comment: The best sources I could dig up through Google (and belive me, I dug) were two reviews (neither of which I'm convinced of the
  reliability of) and one overall survey of this kind of software. Any mentions I found of the Blackboard patent thing only mentioned ATutor in conjunction with of Sakai and Moodle, which doesn't strike me as much justification for an individual article for ATutor. Take this information as you will. Nifboy 06:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  You apparently didn't aim your shovel very well (See e.g., the notes and references I've just added). dr.ef.tymac 04:59, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed, a simple Google Scholar search would have saved us all a lot of drama. C'est la vie. I'd also like to add to the list the report by the Commonwealth of Learning cited in your first source. Nifboy 06:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete.--Amadscientist 05:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To User:Consequentially (after his/her response to the references)

You've offered many assertions that seem self-contradictory, unsubstantiated or totally off-topic. I could indicate them all exhaustively, but I'd rather try to focus on the most critical points. If you still wish to dispute this, please help validate my continuing assumption that all your remarks are offered in good-faith, by responding directly to these points.

Consequentially Item1: you've ... spent ... words insulting me

Please quote the exact text where I insulted you. If you do, I will happily either: 1) recant the specific remark(s) and apologize to you, as well as take specific steps to ensure it does not happen again; or 2) explain why the remark(s) is (are) not an insult or attack against you personally in the first place. If you fail to comply with this request, I will disregard this assertion as unsubstantiated and off-topic.

"You sure like that "straw man" retort. You just get done watching the Wizard of Oz or something?",

There seems to be a sizable WP sub-population with the (very unproductive) practice of linking to articles from Category:Logical fallacies as a response to all disagreement. Admittedly, the "Wizard of Oz" comment was off-topic, but, quite frankly, the practice strikes me as very unhelpful, a tad condescending in itself, and it gets old real quick ... my attempt at humor (weak as it was) was not a personal attack, but rather a commentary on this very annoying behavioral pattern.

Nevertheless, I do apologize if this remark sounded disparaging, but this tactic strikes me as the least conducive means toward open discussion. It doesn't seem much better than someone closing their eyes and ears and repeating at the top of their voice " ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...ha ha ha I'm not listening to you ...".

Not all disagreement constitutes a logical fallacy ... sometimes people are simply operating on different assumptions. I have one request for you. Please consider that rational people can (and do) see things differently. If you already considered and agree with that point, then you may understand why the "logical fallacy link-fest" strikes some people as very unhelpful. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You seem to have a little "screenplay" all thunk up in your head,"

Your "Sticking it to the man" and "David and Goliath" remarks sounded more like a great pitch for a movie, than a response to anything I (or anyone else) had said in this discussion. I never for once claimed there was a "David and Goliath" story or a battle between "good and evil" going on here. My point was (and still is) that someone researching the "Intellectual property" angle would want information on all the key parties, so as to make a balanced evaluation of the merits of their claims. Information relevant to those claims should not be omitted. That seems to me to be what NPOV is all about.

You apparently disagree with me, and that's fine, I can handle disagreement. However, the "David and Goliath" aspect (although fanciful and entertaining) seemed more like storytelling than discussion. In fact, I strongly disagree with the "Blackboard is evil" remarks, since they are a business and I expect them protect their investment using every lawful means available to them. The point is, my personal viewpoints (and yours) should not impede us from trying to view every article from "multiple viewpoints" so as to allow readers to formulate a "back-story" for themselves. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"So far, all you've demonstrated is mastery of the terms "strawman" and "trivial mention."

This was another response to the Category:Logical fallacies link-fest ... and also to the fact that you never defined what you consider to be "trivial mention". I still think your definition may not be entirely consistent with (what I consider to be) a direct reading of WP:N.

This indeed may have sounded disparaging, I apologize for that. Please consider, however, that discussion is a two-way street. If there is a point you feel needs to be made multiple times, or by repeated links to a WP article, you might want to consider making it a footnote, and incorporate it by reference. Also it helps if you can define your understanding of key terms, instead of just repeating the terms, that also gets a bit tiresome. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Interesting, you apparently downgrade WP as a potential source for serious research, that alone speaks volumes, but I'll let you clean up that implicitly disparaging remark yourself, if you choose to."

I suggested an option that might help "serious researchers" ... and you suggested that serious researchers don't start with WP. That may be true now, but frankly that is a response that lacks vision, and is (unfortunately) the very kind of attitude that leads to self-fulfilling prophecies.

This was not a personal attack, but rather a suggestion that I think more WP contributors should take to heart. If we (implicitly or expressly) downgrade the overall credibility of Wikipedia while simultaneously contributing to it ... then what the *bleep* are we doing here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your tone throughout this discussion has been disparaging and hostile, with thinly-veiled phrases that smell strongly of poisoning the well. I refer back to arguments on notability, sources, and the interpretation of policy; you pepper your responses with condescension. Even now, as you issue your list of ultimatums, your tone is sanctimonious and dripping with ridicule. You seem to be misinterpreting the fact that I disagree with you as the fact that I'm a small-minded child who couldn't possibly understand the big scary world of rhetoric and argument. It's to the point now where I'm not going to bother checking this page again until an admin makes his final decision. For me, putting up with your petty attacks isn't worth asserting my point of view. You've done a good job of being a dick. You'll likely interpret this as me running with my tail between my legs, frightened away by your superior intellect and command of language, but in fact, I'm just tired of you. Congratulations, sir. You've exhausted my patience to the point where I'd rather leave this to the rest of AfD votes than deal with you. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You provided specific text, I thank you for that, as it gives me a chance to respond directly. May I suggest that specifics are far more productive than generalizations [Note000]. I don't know you personally, and I have no idea of your preferences or your general communication style. What I interpret as an extremely careful attempt to avoid any hint of "personal insult" you might interpret as "being aloof and sanctimonious" ... do you see the difficulty here?

Reasonable people can (and do) interpret things differently. If misunderstandings can be discussed and avoided, that seems much better than assuming one party is always trying to "defeat" someone else. Not every tale is an epic "David vs Goliath" ... even David had his time of simply tending his sheep. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item2: It seems the only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that this remark has been shown to be incorrect; 2) provide reliable evidence in support of it, proving that all of the authors of the cited references are the "people who made it"; or 3) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that the remark is incorrect, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.

You've drug this along from the very top of the thread, long after the argument has moved elsewhere. Yes, there are other articles about ATutor. But this is an irrelevant conclusion and empty victory, because it still doesn't address the core issues I've raised since the beginning. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, that's progress. I'm just attempting to enumerate all the issues here and check off which ones can be thrown out, and which still need to be addressed. The best way to "address core issues" is one at a time, no? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item3: self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Please either: 1) acknowledge that more than zero of the cited references surpass the level of material indicated here; or 2) otherwise explain why this remark should still be considered relevant. If you fail to comply with this request, I will assume you concede that this is not a critical issue here, and therefore not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.

Your twisting of this statement into an indictment of all your sources is evidence of the venom with which you approach this discussion. I made that argument against your original claim of "65,000 examples of notability," the majority of which were violations of WP:SPS. Now you're setting it up as a straw man. This argument still applies where I originally made it, and that's the end of it. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my remark above about avoiding generalizations [Note000]. Like I said, I'm attempting nothing more than to see which items still need to be covered, and which do not. One at a time. So far, I have Item2 and Item3 as officially resolved to our mutual satisfaction. If I am not correct, please clarify. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item4: you have provided me with reliable sources that demonstrate its a free alternative to Blackboard that students don't like and a few professors at Athabasca do.

Please explain: 1) How this does not refute your own earlier remark the "only people talking about ATutor are the people who made it" [see Item2 above]; 2) How the personal preferences of (ten) students has anything to do with WP:N, which states notability is distinct from "fame", "importance", or "popularity". (emphasis not in original). 3) How the opinion of "some" (ten) students justifies the conclusion: "alternative to Blackboard that students don't like". If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that this point is not a sufficient basis for deleting ATutor.

Your first is an irrelevant conclusion, responded to above. Your second is a misinterpretation and misapplication of the argument, taking out of context to prevent rhetorical stasis. The personal preferences of ten students are the basis of the paper you site, and the argument is an indictment of the source, not of the article's notability. Bad sources bestow bad notability, and insignificant sources bestow no notability at all. Which I've been saying four about three rounds now. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by "Bad sources bestow bad notability" ... unless I am mistaken, we both agree that WP:SPS has now been dealt with and is no longer a concern (Item3). Is there some other definition of "Bad sources" you are referring to here? dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item5: (Regarding the Sharon Clark cite [22]) Another "Technical Evaluation Report," this one comparing ATutor with three other programs ... their criteria for value, is an assertion of quality, not of notability

Please explain why all of the following do not indicate notability:

• online software features of value to disabled learners in distance education;
• ATutor is the only fully accessible LCMS software on the market (i.e., there is no alternative, free or otherwise, with the same or better level of support for disabled learners);
• the software evaluation criteria are from The American Society for Training and Development (ASTD) (established in 1944, international with thousands of members)
• the "other programs" mentioned aren't even in the same category as ATutor, (one of which is a speech synthesis program).

Which of these is not notable? The fact that it helps disabled learners? The fact that it is the only software title in this space that is cited as meeting "their" criteria? The fact that "their" criteria are derived from ASTD, an international orgnanization with tens of thousands of active members who specialize in precisely this subject area?

If you fail to explain, I will assume you concede that your summary of the Sharon Clark cite is insufficient, and therefore inadequate basis for discrediting the cite itself, or for deleting ATutor.

Because arguing that it's a useful program is not the same as aruging its a notable program. I've got a nifty little device in my dorm room that makes ironing military creases a breeze. It's useful, and plenty of people have asked me to make one for them. But it's not notable. And that's why the indictment of the source was made. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your point about the ironing device. If you had: reliable sources; published by laundry appliances experts; and your device was specifically mentioned; and your device was specifically evaluated against criteria devised by a 60 year old international standards body; and your device was the only device cited as passing all the evaluation criteria (as compared to other devices both on the market and off the market); and those criteria were the only such standards established for people with physical disabilities ... are you saying it would still not be notable? If not, can you please describe what else would be needed to make such a device notable? (remember: notability is distinct from "fame" "importance" and "popularity"). dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consequentially Item6: Without context, these cites fail to address the issue of trivial mention.

You have yet to define your interpretation of "trivial mention". This is especially troubling since your summary of the citations (Clark for just one glaring example) suggests you are using a definition that is both: 1) unsupported by WP:N; and 2) based on a superficial reading of the references themselves.^[6] Please either: 1) specifically define your reliance on "trivial mention"; or 2) otherwise explain why this assertion has merit under a direct reading of WP:N. If you do not comply with this request I will assume you have no clearly-specified definition for this standard, and therefore consider it solely a matter of your personal opinion.dr.ef.tymac 16:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In an article that explores the structure of learning software and the interaction of "learning units" with students while using ATutor as the medium for that analysis, the merit is for structures of learning software, not for ATutor. If a report is written on a new synthetic rubber that makes superior tires, and the author tested the tires on his home-made go-kart, the notability is directed towards the tires, not the home-made go-kart. I can't make it any simpler than that. Consequentially 23:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Summary and conclusion

Here's where I think your reading of the references may be a bit off the mark, and this is a good place to summarize and conclude. Using your "go-kart" analogy, ATutor would be the synthetic rubber *not* the go-kart. If you read the references carefully, you will notice that (in more than one instance) the research is predicated on finding a flexible tool that can be adapted to meet the specific needs of different contexts, just like the "rubber" in your analogy.

For example, in one instance, the "rubber meets the road" in the context of learning environments for goal-based learning among students ^[2] (see specifically, pages 496 through 498 describing the use of ATutor). In another instance, the "rubber" is adapted to develop a b-learning system for professional development among teachers at the Graduate School of Education of Bragança [23]. These two examples are different categories of use and they entail entirely different research methodologies and different objectives.

Moreover, when someone uses a "new synthetic rubber" on a go-kart, or someone else uses it for a safety helmet, and they publish their results, which are they more likely to explain in exhausting detail, the rubber itself? or the performance characteristics of the go-kart, helmet, or whatever other invention they were trying to perfect? Isn't it reasonable to expect they will only mention the rubber "in passing"? Isn't it reasonable to expect that the person who uses the rubber is not going to be particularly concerned with documenting details about it, just as long as it meets their immediate need? Indeed, if *anyone* is going to go into great detail about the rubber ... wouldn't it be "the people who manufactured the rubber itself?"

My point should be pretty apparent. We've already established (per Item2) that ATutor has been mentioned in reliable sources by folks other than its original inventors. A careful reading of the references also reveals that ATutor has been used in different contexts, for different objectives. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor has been cited in reference to other related issues such as Intellectual property, open source software, accessibility for disabled users, and international standards for adaptive learning technology. A careful reading also reveals that ATutor is uniquely situated as being the only software of its kind cited for full accessibility. All of these should be more than enough to establish notability. dr.ef.tymac 05:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Problems fixed . --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC) Delete. Apparently, no independent secondary sources discuss the subject with non-trivial depth. As the subject is software, the concern is that this is spam. Perhaps if someone could show that this subject is an important part of Learning Content Management System (LCMS) and needs to be split off due to article size issues, then maybe. --SmokeyJoe 06:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can you please explain why the mention in the Looi cite^[2] constitutes trivial depth? Also, are you saying that you've read all the references cited here, and all of the references returned by Google Scholar?

That source sounds to me like a primary source. It sounds like it is reporting facts. I’d ask to see a review of ATutor, giving commentary, saying it is good/bad/valuable/worthless. If there are reviews, then I expect to see them added to the article, with claims clearly referenced to them. A guide to using ATutor, or a summary of what it does, or a review of the class of software, is not good enough. That is primary information, which is good, but a good secondary source is needed. On the face of it, the article reads to me like a planted promotional piece, written by an advocate/author, sourced entirely from the publisher’s site. I see above that there may possibly be secondary sources. One I couldn’t get, a second I would have to pay for. I can follow your ref#5, and I find only three mentions in passing. None have been integrated into to the article. So I gave up. The article claims that “ATutor is now used around the world…” If the article provided independent verification of this claim, then I would be more impressed. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just for clarification, can you please specify which source you mean when you say "that source sounds to me like a primary source." (e.g., the link or ISBN) so I can know we are talking about the same thing? Also, can you define what you mean by "primary information" I am assuming you mean "distributed by the developer of the software itself" (if that's exactly what you mean, no need to clarify, if not, please do). Thanks. dr.ef.tymac 15:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By primary, I meant the standard scholarly term

WP:NOR. My problem was that, as per Consequentially, the references seemed to be only inconsequential mentions, reporting features of multiple software packages. I was also influenced by frustration with tedious arguments here, confusing referencing here, and completely inadequate referencing at the article itself. The article is now fixed. The referencing is now plenty good-enough. --SmokeyJoe 04:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Also, why is it that Open Source software cited in numerous scholarly publications counts as "spam"? Isn't scholarly sources and Open Source what Wikipedia is all about? dr.ef.tymac 07:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous scholarly publications would be good. Add them to the article if they belong. Wikipedia is about anything that other people have already written about. --SmokeyJoe 08:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This AfD discussion is over 50 kilobytes long. I hope it will be settled soon. JIP | Talk 17:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Instead of adding cites and references here, I've gone ahead and some to the article directly, now the article has some inline cites whereas before this AfD started, it had zero. This should help people who wish to fairly evaluate the issues here, but are too busy to read through all the discussion. dr.ef.tymac 17:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - it's a decent, informative article and the sources seem fine to me. If this is spam, then we need more spam. ←
  B4
• Keep per BenB4 and xDanielx^Talk. Mathmo ^Talk 22:49, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close asap. Good article, good subject, fine sources. Questioning
  WP:AGF. --User:Krator (t c) 23:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply
  ]