Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 September 4

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

The result was merge to

North Queensland Fury FC Staff (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

list of

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to North Queensland Fury FC. Drewbug (talk) 21:10, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 08:23, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:02, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to parent article. GiantSnowman 13:05, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - content is not independently notable. Sir Sputnik (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. To parent article.
  ^talk 14:47, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

She Said, He Said (TV series)

She Said, He Said (TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No non-trivial source coverage. Not likely to become notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 20:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Should've been deleted after it wasn't picked up after the May 2006 upfronts like all other pilots; nothing notable, all edits since 2006 have been for maintenance and categorization.
  chatter) 02:49, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete could not find enough sources for this article, non-notable pilot.
  csdnew 03:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - a single one-off pilot isn't notable enough for inclusion. If the producer/writer/director was notable enough, perhaps merits a mention on their page(s). Ealdgyth - Talk 14:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NSONGS. There is no suficient material for a standalone article and it is not a valid search term. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable song; no charting. --Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 02:08, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as fails
  WP:NSONGS. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:47, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrik Bolling Ferrel

Patrik Bolling Ferrel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability. I may be wrong, and if sources come up, I'll be happy to withdraw nom, but as it stands, I go with deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails
  notability criteria for musicians. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:40, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tristes Tigres

Tristes Tigres (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

I'm just not seeing sufficient notability. I may be wrong, and if sources come up, I'll be happy to withdraw nom, but as it stands, I go with deletion. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 20:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails
  notability criteria for bands. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A numerical reading of this debate might lead one to a no consensus close, however, a careful reading shows no reliable sources, and a clear policy-based consensus that this article should go. Courcelles 00:29, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

Jason Steed (Young adult novels)

Jason Steed (Young adult novels) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No particular evidence given that it meets

My notes on this article and the G4 decline:

• I declined the G4 because there were 6 new references added in 2010, and a total of 12 new refs since the previous deletion of the article. That indicated to me that the content was not substantially the same. (I am making no representation as to suitability of the article for inclusion.)
• Most recent deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fledgling Jason Steed (2nd nomination)
• Link to article content right before it was deleted here (sorry, admins only).

I know it's tedious but it seems the best answer is to have an actual deletion discussion here to determine if it meets criteria for inclusion. The claim is that things have changed since the previous deletion discussion; I think perhaps that's true but a discussion here can determine consensus.  Frank  |  talk  19:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frank, you can see what's in the previous article: WHAT HAS CHANGED?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Twelve new references. Nevertheless, I don't think it meets criteria for inclusion in the project. My G4 decline was process-based; I believe the end result will be the same, with one improvement: a much more recent deletion discussion. Tedious but ultimately useful.  Frank  |  talk  20:08, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The references are full of puff and directory listings and I am not convinced that it meets
  guidelines. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How is it this book seems to be full of Huff & Puff, newspapers in two country's, awards, Authors reviews, and countless reviews on every website seem to appear daily, yet if we look at anything close such as Fledgling (novel) this book survives for 5 years here without a single source. Along with TENS of THOUSANDS of other titles.

• Fledgling (novel) was reviewed on All Things Considered -- I don't think its notability is in question. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Almost all of the "sources" appear to fail
  WP:RS, and I wasn't immediately able to find sufficient reliable sourcing that would establish the notability of the "series" of book(s). I also find the repeated recreation to be dubious and disruptive. jæs (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - having gone to the trouble to point out why it doesn't meet G4 criteria, I've reviewed the sources provided in the article and looked for evidence of notability (particularly GNews hits) and haven't found any. The author has an article; at most this should redirect to Mark A. Cooper (author).  Frank  |  talk  19:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the author's article has also been put up for AfD: see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Cooper (author). Perhaps these two AfDs should be merged? -- The Anome (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree with merging -- author could establish notability without establishing notability of this particular book series. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This new article is NOT identical content. One can cleary see that it has another recent center spread newspaper articles. The book now has two awards, news paper articles in both the United Kingdom and the United States. It has reviews from everyboook reviewer website and a review from a prominant author Joe Craig. If I scan 20 -30 books listed on Wikipedia I can't see any with this much attention, news stories. The book now has a major publisher and according to the publishers website it's scheduled for 7th Sept 2010 launch. Given the recent news articles and reviews I think it should be a strong keep. If we delete it, we must look why this is singled out compared to other books listed in the very same genre. I think the first rejection 14 months ago was correct. But the book has more than proved it self worthy among its peers since. Do we simply ignore this forever due to a posting 14 months ago. If we ignore the hundreds of reviews on Amazon, Goodreads, and various websites submitted by independant people, can we ignore Joe Craigs review, and more newspaper articles. Has Wikipedia turned into a 'boys club' were one or two members can single out a topic? A simple google search (although not making it notable) will give over 92,000 results.(Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 18:08, 5 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

  I can head over to Amazon etc and post reviews on any number of books without reading them, it demonstrates nothing. We have various standards such as

  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The newspaper latest newspaper review is a local new paper with a small box, which again reads more like press release type stuff. As for the issues of 14 months ago, you are correct they shouldn't play a part in how we view this today, however the majority of the above delete comments make no reference to the previous state, instead they say that they have evaluated the sources and searched out new ones before reaching their conclusions. You say the book has "more than proved it self worthy among its peers since". How? By getting a few paragraphs in a local paper and another author writing three sentences on it? Or by having any amount of essentially anonymous reviewers posting on the internet? -(talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

To post a review on amazon you must open an account and make a purchase with a credit card. But I don't think thoses reviews are being claimed as facts. Please stick to the facts, the Sunderland Echo is not a local paper, an authors review is exactly what it is, a review by a peer. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC))82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't claimed amazon's reviews are being used to support facts, I'm replying to your assertion that reviews on various websites by effectively anonymous authors is important - it isn't. No notability standard includes the number of user submitted reviews as a factor, please stick to the wikipedia policies and guidelines. The Sunderland Echo is a local newspaper - it is not available nationally, even if it is available over a fairly large area. The Wikipedia article on it claims a declining readershipcirculation with the last being 44198 in 2008, given the UK where it is published has a population of approximately 60million, it reaches 0.07% of the nation. It's a local paper. The other authors review is referenced to a non-neutral source - the author of this book - the GNG requires independance. Regardless it still amounts to three sentences of puff - it is trivial coverage. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I rechecked amazon and it does require a purchase (it presents the link to add a review which is what I had seen) but only objects after following the link. This however doesn't make a difference to number of user submitted reviews not being a notability factor in any standard. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sufficient sources/info for a keep, (not to mention a nomination for a Indy book award!). Some of the sources definitely need to be cleaned up/removed though (just aren't reliable enough), Sadads (talk) 18:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are you getting confused? The 'indieaward' seems a "you pay us to enter" type of awards and not notable in any way. --Cameron Scott (talk) 20:19, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: It has the two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews to keep a book article - see Kirkus Reviews discussion below and [8], as well as three newspaper articles in England and America, radio coverage - and much more. Interesting that some editors here think that "pay as you enter" types of award are "not notable in any way." Perhaps Wikipedia should delete its article on the Pulitzer Prize, which requires a $50 entry fee. In addition, perhaps the hundreds of articles which reference the Sunderland Echo should also be deleted, as it is "only a local newspaper." (And former front page article on Wikipedia). Also, why is Cameron Scott intent on editing out all mention of awards in the article? Could it be they WANT the article to appear to be non-notable to potential readers?--Itshayfevertime (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference between referencing for facts (where a local newspaper can be fact checked) and referencing to establish notability. If there are many articles on wikipedia which rely on the latter with a local paper then yes, they quite possibly could be nominated for deletion. The article on the Sunderland Echo appeared on the front page of wikipedia is largely irrelevant, it isn't an endorsement of it nor is it an indication of importance in any particular case. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strongest possible delete. Whoa. Okay, so notability is being established here by a) not winning an Indie Book Award, b) a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is
  WP:GNG. Unless this becomes a bestseller or starts seeing critical attention from the world at large, this article needs to go. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 20:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could Chromancer possibly explain this remark, as I don 't understand it. "a blurb written by a fellow children's book author that is probably NN himself" Does this mean Chromancer believes Jason Steed author Mark Cooper is Joe Craig, or that Joe Craig wrote Jason Steed, or that the quote is made up - or what? I am genuinely puzzled! --Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I mean none of those things. The blurb Joe Craig wrote about Mark Cooper's book cannot be used to establish significant secondary coverage, since it is self-published (i.e. Joe Craig's comment is published on Mark Cooper's website) and by someone whose opinion does not carry significant weight. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 23:24, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I don't really agree that the opinion of an award-winning author like Joe Craig "doesn't carry weight," but I really appreciate you helping to clear things up for me.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Does the Book of the year award by fictionreviewer not count? The book seems to be re-published tomorrow by a major publisher. Since when has a book got to be a 'best seller' to be mentioned on wikipedia? There are over 32,000 books listed here? I doubt a small fraction of those have won awards or been written about so much. I checked it out on google books, the book pays tribute to Raymond Steed a link from that wikipedia page states that money from the first edition paid for the memorial. What has this book not got that the thousands of others here have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.65.18.233 (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2010 (UTC) I just did more research on the and found on Kirkus Reviews a company that has a reputaion of thrashing some books have given the novel a 5 star rating. This is the companies highest rating, Twilight was given 3.5. http://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/childrens-books/mark-cooper/fledgling-2/ I think there must be more to the reason why some are wanting this book banned!— 173.65.18.233 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The first AFD addresses the fictionreviewer award with stuff like "See my comments above about fictionreviewer.com: they accept e-mail submissions and have horrible errors in their use of English on their contact page. The two combined, I feel, leaves them with zero credibility as a reliable source for book reviews.". Being published by a major publisher isn't one of the inclusion criteria. Where is your source for the book being a "best seller"? which best seller list did it appear on?
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a good argument, and besides quality is a factor, not quantity. So what about the first edition paying for a memorial, can people buy entries on wikipedia by making chartiable donations now? Of course not, none of our guidelines include any such criteria for inclusion. I'll have to look closer at kirkusreviews, a brief glance seems positive. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 19:05, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I pinged the folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request to see if any of them could confirm that the Kirkus Review helped establish notability. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kirkus Reviews is a RS, and is used as such on many articles here; It is a selective professionally edited review service very widely used by librarians. The Kirkus review concludes with "Well constructed, full of adolescent wish-fulfillment and almost believable, this is an undemanding page-turner in the spirit of Alex Rider and Co. that will appeal to parents as well as kids. Let the sequels begin." However, for books we've normally required two RS reviews. Problem is, I do not see another one, but I will check further. DGG ( talk ) 22:38, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete These reviews don't show notability. Please come back with reviews from literary journals. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Chromancer. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The Joe Craig blurb is a blurb, not a review. A review must be published. Authors, even prominent ones, say nice things about tother authors books for advertising, jacket copy, web pages, and Amazon--but they do not normally have any reliability at all. Only what they publish in an edited source is reliable. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep OMG. I just googled it. This book is huge. EVERY book site around the world has huge reviews on it. http://eatingyabooks.blogspot.com/2010/08/in-middle-mondayreview-of-fledgling.html ARE WE NOT AN INTERNET ENCYCLOPEDIA? Why do we then ignore websites for clarification and look for resources such as old fashion newspapers and when we see them , we scoff them. I was amazed by the reviews this book has got from all these sites, that is an astonishment achievement by itself. As for the author paying for the memorial, "Good for him" to many of us forget our fallen heros' I say a very strong keep. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.230.112.162 (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  — 12.230.112.162 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.  Frank  |  talk  03:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• So his paying for the memorial we should be impressed with and reward with an article? ARE WE NOT AN ENCYCLOPEDIA... We look for
  reliable sources coering the subject, not random anonymous people on the internet. Blogs like the one you've pointed to I can easily setup and write whatever I want, doesn't mean I know anything about the subject, so part of being an encyclopedia is actually filtering out such stuff, if we were just here to grab anything else from the web we may as well respoing wikipedia.org to google.com --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep per sadads. Charles Matthews (talk) 03:38, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE: the above comment wasn't made by User:Charles Matthews but rather 12.170.214.41. MER-C 05:49, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• You realise the indy award is not indy as in "The Independent" newspaper? --82.7.40.7 (talk) 06:43, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • • It is now at No 6 in the Martial Arts kids books list on Amazon.com - and rising rapidly. [[9]] You can't argue with that type of popularity!--Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  That would be useful...if only we were discussing popularity. However, we are actually discussing

  notability, a different thing. The difference may be subtle, but it is nevertheless real.  Frank  |  talk  21:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Comment That would be an argument if a) it were relevant to notability and b) it were true; as of only a few moments ago it was number 12 and falling. It appears that a place on Amazon's bestseller list is extremely transient. — Chromancer ^talk/_cont 21:32, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  As an hourly updated list it's currently at no 12, guess it's peaked and past it's prime? Not that such a narrow sample is that indicative. At 1 is The Karate Mouse (Geronimo Stilton, No. 40), we don't have an article on that either. Widening it to childrens books it doesn't make the top 100. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Whoops, now it slipped to #16 [and later #19], it's falling like a rock! Amazon's sales rank for this is 182,243, so an "It's popular on Amazon" claim isn't going to fly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  ...aaand it currently sits at #32. Apparently since these are updated hourly and the topic is so narrow, a single purchase is enough to make something briefly rise in the chart, afterward it settled back down again. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  The Karate Mouse is still no 1 though, still no article for that literary masterpiece. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Chromancer. Also, a closer look at the edit histories of this article's main contributor (along with Oliver0071) shows a pattern of edits almost entirely promoting Mark Cooper and/or his books. We may be seeing a long-term
  conflict of interest or use of sockpuppets here. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Mike - I have already said in this debate, two or three times now I believe, that I used to be Beehold. However, I have nothing whatsoever to do with Oliver0071, although you are not the only one to owe him an apology now.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:02, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Might be worth a sock report - the IP addresses as well. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it may have already been done, but if not, feel free. At least then someone might feel the need to apologise to Oliver0071 - as, after just looking at his contributions, he seems to have been scared off from editing at all.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 13:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong delete - aggressive and shameless spamming history, very strong indications of sockpuppeting and the like; more to the point, still no notability established. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:58, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mike - the book has the "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" to keep a book article on Wikipedia - see Kirkus Reviews discussion above and [10]. If there is spamming/sockpuppetry on this page, then it is NOTHING to do with me. I am the original author of this article and I know that, although you are allowed to have sockpuppets, it is against Wikipedia rules to use them to try and influence voting. So... feel free to check me out - or stop making false allegations.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 14:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the page is deleted, it should be salted given the aggressive attempts to ensure that wikipedia is used to advertise this book. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I believe there is an orchestrated campaign against this article. It meets the requirements of Wikpedia to stay on the site (two RS reviews)- yet there are editors such as Cameron who are determined to see it trashed. Hmmmm - I smell something rotten in the state of Wikipedia.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a standard which says 2 RS reviews. The standard is non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources. Multiple has a debatable meaning where the number is usually a factor of the perceived quality of the sources. (Not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing if the sources meet the standard in the first place here, just a note that a hard 2 has never been the criteria). The idea that through continual recreation under different titles by SPAs is pretty scary to me, I smell something rotten and not eminating from wikipedias standards. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given it's been recreated under about 4 different titles now, posted on a similar number of userpages I doubt salting any given title will help. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 18:31, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Roughly 0.01% of my edits (@10,000 edits) are about this article, clearly I am out to get it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:08, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup - and another 10 percent are on my talk page, trying to get me to retailiate in some way. (Well, you are the major contributor anyway...) Tough - I know your game. --Itshayfevertime (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note - Itshayfevertime (talk · contribs) has opened an AN/I discussion regarding this AFD here. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:19, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No in-depth coverage in reliable sources to show notability. No prejudice against Frank, I'd have probably declined a G4 as well. The nearest these books come to notability is the article in The Cornish and Devon Post, but tellingly that article predicts a movie to be made in the summer of next year (2010) that clearly never happened. -- Atama頭 21:41, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note The Cornish & Devon Post article, The Bradenton Times article and The Sunderland Echo article, so now we have unearthed 'THREE newspaper articles'. "two Wikipedia-required RS independent reviews" a review or Blurb from award winning author Joe Craig. Surley the 'no-sayers' and those who started the 'ihatejasonsteed' wikipedia page should just own up and admit they have tried to sabotage a page that has the merits. I am 15 and would never come up with anything so dumb as this; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ihatejasonsteed. This is getting childish. (Oliver Spy Fan (talk) 22:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Reply - the Brandenton Times article wasn't even about the books, it was a biographical article on Cooper. The Steed books aren't even mentioned until nearly the end. It's good evidence for the notability of Cooper (whose article isn't up for deletion right now) but not the Jason Steed books. The article supposedly from the Sunderland Echo is not listed in their archives, so I can't tell if it was a brief blurb or a press release (if it was an actual article I would have thought they'd have it on their site). Why would you bring up some sockpuppet named "Ihatejasonsteed"; are you trying to accuse those arguing for deletion here of being sockpuppets? -- Atama頭 22:18, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No Atama I am not saying anything like that, I know everyone means well and wants what's best for Wikipedia, I make many contributions on YA books and I set up the Mark A. Cooper page. My favorite author Anthony Horowitz is already open and all of his books have their own page. I am still shocked that if they can, how come Mr Cooper's book can't? I just mention the user page I did as it seems that someone is trying to stir things up, why else would they dream of such a name when this debate was going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oliver0071 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't, that account was created and blocked a week ago (and the person who blocked that sockpuppet just happens to be the same person who created this discussion to have the article deleted). -- Atama頭 22:52, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the Sunderland Echo story. It wasn't on their website - I don't know why - but here is the PDF copy they agreed to upload to Wikipedia. [11] It was part of a feature on YA books, with a special emphasise on Robert Muchamore and Mark Cooper.--Itshayfevertime (talk) 22:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all. I will happily restore for transwiki at the request of any sysop on either of Memory Alpha or Beta. Courcelles 00:07, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2201-TMP)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2201-TMP) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2301-2367) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2368-2371) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2372-2374) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (2375-distant future) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Chronological list of Star Trek stories (TMP-2300) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

– (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fan list-cruft, written from the perspective of an in-universe timeline. Works better at Memory Alpha than a proper encyclopedia. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Memory Beta. 76.66.197.151 (talk) 05:17, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to Memory Alpha as suggested at in the nom. Not encyclopedic.
  Talk // Contribs 17:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:46, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ye Gods - Delete from Wikipedia, and merge to MA/MB in the unlikely event the material isn't otherwise covered there. This is entirely in-universe rehash of plot summary with no anchoring in real-world treatment/perspective. --EEMIV (talk) 21:10, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and/or Transwiki to Memory Alpha, but I suspect they already have content similar to this. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:32, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Cirt (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Royal

Richard Royal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Auto Biography, no RS for Biography Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No evidence of notability found at Google News or Google Books (lots of hits for OTHER people but not for him). Prizes claimed are not major of significant. Sorry. --MelanieN (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Schmidt

Doug Schmidt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

No RS found, no G-New, mentioned once in passing on google books Weaponbb7 (talk) 17:19, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Cautious Delete I also could not find any reliable sources. However, because Doug/Douglas Schmidt is a very common name, it appears frequently in news and scholarly sources, making it hard to exhaustively search through this material. It's possible that we're missing sources. But I suppose the burden is on people arguing to keep to provide sources, if there are any? Cazort (talk) 17:24, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as article fails
  notability criteria for authors. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 13:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:50, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Project Bueller

Project Bueller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Appears to fail

• Agreed on all points. I also want to point out that the coverage in both sources is brief. I also found a reliable source using the same term "Project Bueller" to refer to a completely different project: [12]. All this points me to recommend to Delete. Cazort (talk) 17:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources are only cursory mentions and limited to blog-type postings. I would consider New York Magazine a
  crystal ball? :P --Kinu ^t/_c 19:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, a float/event in a parade is not notable, and lack of mainstream and notable sources confirm that. First Light (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Potential future event which would make a nice little legacy-type aside paragraph to Ferris Bueller's Day Off if it ever happens. Delete with a smile. Carrite (talk) 15:58, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Carrite. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 16:52, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Courcelles 00:12, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrice Simon

Fabrice Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Fails

• Strong & Speedy Keep Extensive NY Times Obit: [13]. Other sources: [14], [15], [16] Sources make bold statements, establishing notability. Biographical information for a full article is readily available with little effort. In the future please check for sources before nominating. Cazort (talk) 17:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the sources given by Cazort are more than sufficient to establish notability. I've added some citatations to the obituary to the article. The article didn't previously mention that he was given a Coty Award. Hut 8.5 18:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep based on sources found by Cazort. Edward321 (talk) 13:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bryos

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

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

Software article that does not explain its importance, origins, use, or provide any references. Drdisque (talk) 16:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong & Speedy Delete I could find no sources. This is either a joke/prank, or something entirely non-notable. It doesn't even seem to have a homepage. Cazort (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination; this probably should have been nominated for speedy. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 18:07, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I did mark it for speedy deletion, but apparently "A7 does not apply to software" according to the Admin who rejected it. -Drdisque (talk) 23:58, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And he's right, though I've little idea why. Guess you could have prod'ed it, but it'll get done now. — Chromancer^talk/_cont 00:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as there is no indication of
  notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:48, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Chaosball

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

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

Non-notable sport. This is almost a case of

• Speedy delete per nom and also unreferenced. Poor search as well and one of creator's edit summary doesn't bode well for
  WP:GNG along with the article itself.--NortyNort (Holla) 16:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I could not find any sources. Cazort (talk) 17:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Completely falls into
  WP:RS don't exist. - Pmedema (talk) 19:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete until it reaches the mainstream and gets notable coverage. First Light (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Carrite (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting, yes, notable, no. If you want to promote the idea, do it in a series of videos on YouTube (I can envision how this works from the prose -- basically, everyone but the server is trying to grab a ball bouncing off the walls of a racquetball court, server gets a point if the ball hits the floor a second time). I have a feeling that the piece of equipment used, called a "reflex ball" or a "reaction ball", depending on manufacturer, might be notable enough for its own article, with plenty of sources to draw upon. As for the game, notability first, Wikipedia article second, and not the other way around. Mandsford 00:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Completely unreferenced and unsourceable, made up in one day.
  Talk // Contribs 17:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to SpaceX. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Falcon XX

Falcon XX (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

This article (and its sister article

I don't believe Wikipedia should have an article on what is now a purely speculative future heavy-lift rocket. Perhaps a section within the SpaceX main article is more appropriate. N2e (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I think in this case a Merge is more appropriate. I'm not even sure discussion is necessary; just merge, and discuss if people later object. Some information on this theoretical rocket is
  notability. A forward from this topic would be helpful in case someone typed the topic into the search box or URL bar, and wouldn't hurt anything because it is a legitimate, verifiable topic, even though notable enough to have its own article. Cazort (talk) 17:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I also think Merge into the main SpaceX article would be appropriate. Falcon X and Falcon XX show ways which the Falcon rocket line could evolve but it is by no means a done deal that it will happen. Still, there is enough information to make a nice section in the company article. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Almost all content can be merged into "Future plans" or some suitably named new section at SpaceX. Article names remain legitimate as search terms, and should redirect to the appropriate section of SpaceX.--Yeti Hunter (talk) 02:04, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• As nominator, while I believe a Delete would be an acceptable outcome, for the reasons articulated above, I would also have no problem supporting a Merge of the well-sourced portion of the info in this article into the SpaceX article, especially if that assists in the development of a valid consensus on the matter. N2e (talk) 04:54, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Guerra

Gustavo Guerra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This is probably a speedy deletion candidate, but there is an assertion of notability, albeit weak. The "5th most subscribed Brazilian user of all time on YouTube" and the "8th most-viewed Brazilian partners of all time" are not substantial enough to meet the notability guidelines, and he doesn't meet the musician guidelines at all. The three references are a pair of YouTube lists and a link that redirects to the guitar maker's home page (and no results in the Internet Archive). Horologium (talk) 15:21, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails
  notability. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 12:34, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Burgess (illustrator)

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

)

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

Deleted, but then Contested WP:REFUND by the subject of the article. Known for Return to the Hundred Acre Wood classic WP:ONEVENT, Probably could be redirected to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood but does not deserve own article Weaponbb7 (talk) 14:27, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Redirect - per nom.
  Jeremjay24
• Speedy Keep. Known worldwide as an author and illustrator of over 40 children's books written over the past 20 years. This is far from a classic
  WP:ONEEVENT. When using the search tools above, search "Mark Burgess", removing the notation in parentheses. Add the term "author". You'll get several hits.[17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33] Should I go on? If you need to see more, please let me know. Cindamuse (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Yes, please. But this time please point to works about this person rather than by this person. Consider this a big {{
    fact}} against that "known worldwide" if it helps. Where is it recorded that this person is known? Who recorded it? Where has this knowledge been published? Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment. Do you have a recommendation based on policy for this particular article to either keep or delete? Or are you simply here to serve as devil's advocate? The nomination was made to delete this article based on the presumption of
      WP:ANYBIO, as such he has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his specific field. His work has been published by major publishing houses of Penguin Books and HarperCollins. I would present that his collective body of work illustrating not only the recent revisit of Winnie the Pooh, but his adaption of Peggy Fortnum's illustrations for the 50th Anniversary Edition of A Bear Called Paddington by Michael Bond; as well as his illustrations of the classic edition of Little Toot by Hardie Gramatky, highly qualify as an enduring historical record to children's literature. [34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]
      Periodical reviews not online include Publishers Weekly, March 12, 2001, "Review of Teddy Time", p. 93; School Arts, October 2000, Ken Marantz, "Review of Dog's Night", p. 64; School Library Journal, July, 2000, Patricia Mahoney Brown, Review of Dog's Night", p. 80.
      • I'm here to get you to provide a good rationale in place of the bad one, citing sources that don't in fact document the subject at hand at all, that you are still providing. Notice that not a one of the sources that you've cited thus far documents this person to any greater extent than the longest does, which is exactly one sentence: "Illustrations are by Mark Burgess, an English writer and illustrator of many children's books.". Most give this person exactly three words. So, for the second time of asking, please cite sources that are about this person, that actually document the knowledge of this person that you claim exists but haven't yet shown to be documented. Pointing to a couple of dozen occurrences of "illustrator Mark Burgess" and an autobiographical jacket blurb does not demonstrate independent reliable source material for a biographical encyclopaedia article. Uncle G (talk) 20:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. I think I've provided more than enough information to establish notability in support of keeping this article on Wikipedia. I would like to suggest that you may better serve the AfD process by participating according to information provided at How to discuss an AfD. It just feels like you're a bystander or someone sitting in the church balcony looking down at everyone else participating, while you're just waiting for someone to screw up, so you can point fingers. This is just my personal observation of several AfDs where you have done the same thing. It may help if you actually join the process by offering a recommendation based on policy, and offering comments accordingly. Just a thought. Have a great day! Cindamuse (talk) 22:18, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's called AfD Patrol, kiddo, and it helps the process by discouraging people from thinking that the right approach is to try to out-vote policy with boldfaced words, unsupported and bad rationales, and non-sources (even two dozen of them). The recommendation based upon policy stands: You should provide a good rationale, with a sound basis in deletion and verifiability policies that supports your intention that the article be kept (as well as supporting the as yet unsupported claims about this person that you've made). Despite it being pointed out twice, now, you've not done so, and your rationale still holds no water when it comes to the correct application of policy. You've cited sources that don't discuss this person (because, of course, they are in fact discussing books, and merely mentioning this person in passing) and a book jacket blurb. If you want the article kept, you would do well to start citing more than two dozen non-sources and an autobiographical publicity blurb. It's what policy requires, and if it doesn't happen you'll find your rationale being discounted and the outcome that you oppose happening despite you. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comment. I'm well aware of the AfD Patrol, Bubba ; ) which neither confers rights or privileges, nor absolves responsibility or expectations beyond those of all editors which recommends an appropriate guideline for participating in an AfD discussion. The intent of the patrol is to assist the process, rather than hinder it. As such, the policies and guidelines of the AfD Patrol, reminds participants to review and comply with the guidance offered at How to discuss an AfD. Again, I think it might be something you may want to consider. Lead by example. Give it a try. Cindamuse (talk) 11:22, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Sources: [46], [47], those are not extensive coverage but they're solidly reliable, and they firmly establish verifiable information. This man is solidly notable through his illustrations.
  WP:AUTH reads "# The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." And even in the "worst case scenario" that we find only sparse biographical information, keeping the page is still useful as a resource for finding his various works. Cazort (talk) 17:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • And you are proposing to provide verifiability for even that much of an article, to counter problems like this one, from what sources? Uncle G (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see how this comment is relevant to the deletion discussion. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then you don't understand our deletion and verifiability policies and should go back and refamiliarize yourself with them. This is an AFD discussion, where policies are applied. The boldfaced words don't count; the rationales do. Our policies require that even the minimum, "worst case", skeleton article that you propound be verifiable. This is the question that you get asked and have to answer to make a case that meets policy: What sources exist even for your proposed skeleton? If you think that you don't have to show that even the minimal article that you suggest can be verifiable, then be prepared for an unpleasant surprise at discussion closure. Answer the question or fail to make a case. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Changed to weak keep. Not a single source is about this author;
  WP:GNG is therefore not met. I believe he authored books. I believe he illustrated books. What is his historic impact? --Pgallert (talk) 22:16, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • See
    WP:AUTH point 3; his work has received a great deal of editorial attention, including in the NY Times, CS Monitor: [48], guardian, and other high-profile publications. That is an official wikipedia guideline and according to this, he is solidly notable. The volume of attention is substantial: [49] shows mention in 113 articles; a number of those are detailed editorial reviews of the work. And since Winnie the Pooh is largely about the illustrations, this makes it very solid the way I see things. Cazort (talk) 02:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • This source is the classic example of a "mentioning in passing", just like all the others. The article is not about Burgess, which would be what we're looking for. --Pgallert (talk) 12:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that Burgess as an individual is just mentioned in these sources--but his work is discussed in great detail.
        notability in a case like this. That is an official wikipedia guideline. Would you argue that point 3 is not met? Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Currently yes, I would argue that point 3 of
          CREATIVE which I do not see he meets. I'll reconsider after the rescue attempt is done. --Pgallert (talk) 19:47, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
          ]

• I must respectfully disagree with your interpretation of policy on two points; I think the numerous editorial reviews of the sequel, including in high-profile, globally respected publications like the NY Times and Christian Science Monitor demonstrate that point 3 is met. Also, I also want to point out that
  notability does not depend on the current state of the article. Notability must be argued solely based on the existence of sources--the state of the article is irrelevant. Cazort (talk) 20:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I do not buy the "multiple independent reviews=significant work" part of the story. To me, this equality cannot be concluded from
  CREATIVE but is after the improvements by Codehydro notable per GNG. Change to weak keep. --Pgallert (talk) 08:29, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• comment Incase you havent already guessedWeaponbb7 (talk) 22:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Return to the Hundred Acre Wood. Unfortunately, even those !voting for keeping the article appear unable to provide third party sources about the illustrator. Articles about the book abound and many mention the Burgess is the illustrator, but this is not adequate coverage to either establish notability or generate an adequately sourced biographical article. VQuakr (talk) 03:20, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AUTH point 3 is pretty clear that articles about the work establish the notability of the individual. Cazort (talk) 19:31, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Redirection to that page makes no sense as this person also illustrated other books such as the 1999 remake of Little Toot. —CodeHydro 19:33, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Reinstatement of deleted sources: [50][51].
  • That's an inaccessible library catalogue, and an article that is, as so many others in this discussion are, actually about Return to the Hundred Acre Wood rather than Mark Burgess. As before, this provides almost zero biographical information about Burgess other than the usual "illustrated by Mark Burgess". Its only other statement about Burgess, rather than about the book, is a first person personal opinion of the book reviewer ("Burgess, I am sure, knows"). Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The inaccessible library catalogue was my error as I hadn't realised it was session-linked, hence (in part) my original deletion of it. The British Library Integrated Catalogue is freely accessible without login and, although a little idiosyncratic, is useful for verifying works by British authors. However, because of the session linking it is not possible to provide direct links to entries. Marcus civis (talk) 20:56, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Sufficient career achievement to merit inclusion. I would suggest that this article be improved immediately to save its bacon, however, and have flagged it for rescue. Carrite (talk) 16:03, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sufficient career achievement" doesn't overcome the problems that the biographical content cannot be verified from independent sources and the bibliographical content cannot be verified at all. If there is no verifiable bibliographical nor biographical content to be had, an empty article results. This is a deletion outcome, per policy. I've pressed for sources. In response, we've had claims that sources are irrelevant to the discussion, citations of Burgess' autobiography, and citations of lots of three-word "illustrated by Mark Burgess" non-sources. Things are not looking good. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I disagree with your interpretation of policy here. I think that the size and scale of an article is irrelevant if the subject meets any of the notability criterion. In particular, I believe that
  WP:AUTH point 3 is met, others may not agree with my interpretation of that point but that is what I believe and I have not been convinced otherwise and would thus strongly object to this deletion. Also, even if you are resting your argument on the size / scale of the article (which I don't think is a valid interpretation of policy), the article has since been expanded. One source I find questionable but even without that, it's big enough for me if I were judging on the size of the article alone. I maintain my earlier recommendation of strong keep. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I have expanded the article a bit and added some sources. A lot more need to be done, but it is certainly not worth deleting this article on an author and illustrator of so many books. Since it is not that old, deleting would be like
  WP:DEMOLISH. —CodeHydro 19:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The problem is that the source that you've added supporting the major portion of the content that you've added is Mark Burgess' autobiography. That's not an independent source. If the world at large, independent of Mark Burgess, has not documented the life of Mark Burgess, then Wikipedia cannot have a biography of Mark Burgess. You've also failed to address the basic verifiability problem that Cazort is failing to address, above, that is exemplified by this problem. The only source that you've cited that even comes close to addressing that is Helwig2009 (which once again is actually about the book rather than about the person and only touches upon the person in passing) which merely states that Burgess "has illustrated countless classic children’s characters". That doesn't provide verifiability for even the skeleton article suggested, and doesn't provide a means for addressing the aforementioned problem. It's not really providing much in the way of concrete factual information at all. Uncle G (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Contrary to popular belief, there is not a global restriction to using autobiographical sources as references. That said, there are guidelines in its use.
      WP:BLPSPS
      specifically states to never use self-published sources, "unless written or published by the subject". Autobiographies or information published by the subject of the article may be used as a source if:

1. it is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources. Cindamuse (talk) 11:44, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Cindamuse. I'd also like to note that I added four sources since the comment above by Uncle G seems to imply that I only added one. The self-published source is only used to fill in the gaps and is used in a way that is entirely consistant with
  WP:SOURCES and the policy which Cindamuse cites above. As for Uncle G's concern that works by other Mark Burgesses are included in his list, I noticed that as well, hence why I added the disambiguation above the article. Glad it got taken care of. —CodeHydro 20:09, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. And now I have doubled the list of third-party sources, phasing out most of directly self-sourced references. —CodeHydro 21:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The one source: [52] is a blog source and I think some justification is needed in order to consider it

WP:RS. But even without that source I would maintain my recommendation to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 20:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep. I posted this remark on

Talk:Mark Burgess (illustrator) and it has been suggested to post it here as well. Mark Burgess is an important British illustrator . He certainly qualifies as being notable (or a lot of other articles on illustrators and designers will have to go). Illustration is an important part of modern culture, those who excel should be mentioned in Wikipedia. The article should not be deleted. If it does not meet the other criteria of Wikipedia, than that is the issue that should be addressed. --JHvW (talk) 14:16, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep Has significantly contributed to multiple notable works, listed in the article. Dream Focus 04:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Even more greatly expanded, with full bibliography. Source once again re-doubled as of last comment. Also nominated this article for DYK for 5x expansion. —CodeHydro 17:03, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What does "DYK for 5x expansion" mean? Dream Focus 18:06, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

DYK or WP:Did you know is a way of promoting new content on Wikipedia by featuring articles in the "Did you know" section of the Wikipedia main page for around 6 hours. Basically new articles that are less than five days old that are of a minimum length or articles that have been expanded in length by over five times within the past five days may qualify to promoted this way. It's fairly typical for a DYK article to gain thousands of views in those brief six hours on the front page when it normally may get around 30 per day. —CodeHydro 03:23, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Asite Ltd

Asite Ltd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Software-as-a-Service company with no evidence of notability. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:44, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Sounds a bit non-notable to me, and should have a bit more sources, I think. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom
  Jeremjay24 14:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:06, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I wrote the original believing Asite to be notable. As recent edits to the intro emphasise, it has pioneered some software advances, notably in the area of Building Information Modelling. It was the only company of its type listed on AIM. Its first chairman (Sir John Egan) and its major shareholder, Robert Tchenguiz, are certainly notable - and, in my opinion and in the latter context - it is notable that this business has accumulated substantial losses since its establishment (I will edit the article to make these points, adding references).Paul W (talk) 08:04, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable online business, obviously promotional in tone and intent: providing web-based electronic project management, project extranet, or construction collaboration technologies...... - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 20:25, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Train (band). Courcelles 00:26, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rob Hotchkiss

Rob Hotchkiss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

Band member with no individual notability. This has been changed several times to a redirect to his band but has been eventually reverted every time by User:Bobbydove, whose edits across Wikipedia are focused on this person. Possible autobiography. Suggest delete/restore redirect. Hairhorn (talk) 13:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore redirect
  Jeremjay24 14:33, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  WP:BAND. He has no individual notability from his formal band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I have added more information to the subject's page and believe that the deletion of the individual page is unwarranted.--Bysshe (talk) 22:01, 6 September 2010 (UTC)— Bysshe (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

• The information you provided does not indicate individual notability from his formal band. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Courcelles 00:14, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Craig Rivera

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

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

Nothing in the article establishes the notability of the subject. The sources supplied in the article link the subject to his wife and other relatives but do nothing to establish his own notability. Working in television does not automatically confer notability. SQGibbon (talk) 13:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.
  Jeremjay24 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete also per nom. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:48, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was As nominator, withdrawn AFD in favour of redirect and parallel AFD. Strange Passerby (talk) 01:59, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

United Parcel Service Flight 6

United Parcel Service Flight 6 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics

)

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

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  list of News-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. —Strange Passerby (talk) 13:12, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The fatal crash of a Boeing 747 freighter is likely to lead to changes in the operation of 747 aircraft in general, including passenger aircraft, and possibly to aircraft operations in general in the United Arab Emirates. The article has adequate references Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what you're saying is that even though there's
    none of that has happened yet, and even though that would belong in articles about 747s and aircraft operations in the UAE, this article should be kept? Uncle G (talk) 13:47, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep, but rewrite - Seems like an important subject, but needs to be rewritten. If deleted, delete per
  Jeremjay24 14:37, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Like UPS Airlines Flight 6 is written? Uncle G (talk) 16:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP is not news and can not report on every event, not matter how shocking or sad. If this event leads to changes in 747 operations or UAE operations then it should be reported in an article on the changes, when they have happened.Borock (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- not all accidents, no matter how tragic to those involved and those close to them, are notable. Agree that if industry-wide changes are made, then that would be a topic for another article, which might mention this accident if a sufficient and well-sourced causal connection is shown. N2e (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is a bigger deal then some are giving it credit for, the
  WP:EVENT. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Redirect to
  WP:AVIMOS, is better developed, and was created first. The accident itself is notable enough to sustain an article. Mjroots (talk) 20:05, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect to
  WP:CSD#A10 as duplicate information which does not discuss the topic in as much depth. This is purely a procedural recommendation; judgment on the validity of the target article is withheld. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:10, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy redirect to
  United Parcel Service Flight 6. Q43 (talk) 21:26, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Link changed. Mjroots (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Non-admin closure.

A Sunbather's Daydream

A Sunbather's Daydream (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Author's first book, self-published on Xlibris (a self publishing house). Not notable. Let me know if there is a CSD category for this. Quartermaster (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as article fails
  notability criteria for books. It is a self-published book. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, per
  Jeremjay24 14:42, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - fails WP:Books with no reliable sources found. Sunshine4921 (talk) 14:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as said above. Non-notable, also lacks some reliable sources. DARTH SIDIOUS 2 ^(Contact) 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- no notability demonstrated in a
  reliable secondary source. N2e (talk) 16:03, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per all. Yousou (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - fails
  snowball at this one. Pmedema (talk
  )