Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 April 9

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph G. Crum

Ralph G. Crum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

WP:N: I don't see sourcing or claims which would suggest this metal-fatigue academic would meet WP:PROF or WP:SCHOLAR, but additional sources are, as always, welcome. Ditto searches that would establish notability under WP:GNG. joe decker^{talk to me} 20:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete. I couldn't find sources at Youngstown, Google scholar, or elsewhere that would support a pass of
  WP:PROF. And coverage in Google news was also lacking. I did find what appear to be paid obituaries on multiple web sites example but while they may be ok to source the factual material in the article they're no good for proving notability. The reason my delete !vote is only a weak one is because of one thing the obit says, that he was president of the American Society of Civil Engineers. But I've been unable to find any information from other sources that would confirm this or say anything about his term as president, if indeed he was. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Yeah, if that were the full ASCE (not a local chapter), and it could be section, yeah, I'd be entirely in favor of keeping this too. I see verify that a Roy W. Crum was secretary of the Iowa chapter in 1920, but that's a different Crum. Hrm. :) --joe decker^{talk to me} 14:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject of this unsourced BLP. J04n(talk page) 22:10, 15 April 2011 (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 07:31, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros.

List of secondary characters from The Venture Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article was originally created based on

]

• Delete. A list of inherently non-notable subjects must, I think, itself be non-notable. Pburka (talk) 21:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I already transwikied the entire history of this article, to a Venture Bros. Wiki. [15] Dream Focus 03:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to List of The Venture Bros. characters any recurring characters should be merged. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 05:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Consists of apparently only one-time characters, who don't need mentioning at all in character lists. List of The Venture Bros. characters already lists the organizations, so that doesn't need to be merged either. Nothing to save, so delete. – sgeureka ^t•c 14:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete mostly one-time characters, none of whom meet the
  WP:LISTN. Shooterwalker (talk) 22:59, 19 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pepper and Kad

Pepper and Kad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

]

• Delete. Non-notable youtube animated series, no independent coverage. Shearonink (talk) 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  

Note:

PROD was originally placed on this article February 20 by Snowolf ^{How can I help?} at 01:34, 20 February 2011(UTC) with this edit and was removed by article-creator Thomasbum98 on February 20 with this edit.--Shearonink (talk) 01:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No coverage in independent sources to establish notability. --
  talk) 22:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:33, 12 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Mary King (novel)

Mary King (novel) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

PROD removed, hence AfD. This subject does not meet any of

]

The book has only just been released so there is a lag before it gets in the news. Being the first graphic novel sequel is valuable in its own right. Dlary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

• Delete Being the first something is not necessarily notable. A 44 page graphic novel published by a publisher I can't trace, by a red-linked author into the bargain, suggests possible self-publication. No references are given other than the book author's site. (I give the author full marks for getting the merchandising going early...) If it were a previously undiscovered sequel by Miss Austen herself, it would have instant notability (subject, of course, to
  WP:RS. By Sophie St Clair, it will have to wait for sales and reviews or other coverage to achieve it. Peridon (talk) 19:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Not the author though or the publisher, though can see why you might think I was! The publisher is actually operating through CreateSpace, Amazon's book printing division. Still think it is premature to delete it, should give a chance for the book reviews to come out. Dlary (talk) 20:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already found that you weren't an SPA, and that's why I said 'book author's site'. Self-publication referred to the book, not the article. and from what you've just said, I'm afraid I was right. I'm afraid that the book's success is a thing for the future to show (

WP:CRYSTAL) and not for us to anticipate. Peridon (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. No substantial coverage in independent sources yet. Article can be recreated when sources exist to demonstrate notability. Pburka (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: When reliable sources that show notability exist, the article can be re-created.
  talk) 22:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete An
  informal sequel does not have any inherent notability. Without more direct coverage it doesn't meet our notability guidelines. ThemFromSpace 00:13, 11 April 2011 (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 SPEEDY DELETE, A7. postdlf (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Olavi Ahokas

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

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

Non notable artist,no sources except his website. DimaG (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete - makes no claim of notability of individual, no relevant search hits other than personal website
  ^✰ 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy A7. Nothing on his website indicates notability, either. Pburka (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pogroms carried out by Arabs against Jews

Pogroms carried out by Arabs against Jews (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

The PROD was removed, thus I cannot re-PROD it. This is essentially a one-sentence definition-like stub; the title is problematic (Arabs? all of them? Some?), and the sentence then says "Muslims". The PROD was removed because the topic was deemed notable -- it possibly is, but this stub doesn't even define exactly what said topic is supposed to be. The merge discussion which is supposedly taking place somewhere was about merging a different article which has since been deleted.

As it stands, this page conflates Arab and Muslim, and places it next to the antisemitism-box. I suggest deleting this short thing until people can figure out what the correct title should be and what the exact topic is. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 18:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment—I'm not sure that this article adds much beyond what is on the
  List of pogroms may be useful to give a historical perspective.—RJH (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete The article consists of one eight-word sentence, which is a sweeping generalisation. It is cited to two poorly-identified books. As noted above, the one sentence refers to "Muslims" not "Arabs". This article has the appearance of an attack article, and the article creator has created several other similar articles which have been deleted as attack pages. RolandR (talk) 21:17, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Comment; In the present state what would be the purpose of the article that is actually shy of being a stub? There is a merge request tag and no comments. There was no tag placed on the intended receiving article, Antisemitism in the Arab world, so I did so. This titled sentence could be incorporated into Pogrom if expanded but I feel does not deserve article status. Otr500 (talk) 22:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:One sentence non-article created by SPA with agenda of proving Ottoman cruelty to Jews. Most sources don't refer to these events as "pogroms", and the article links to historically very disparate events from different centuries under a questionable (and unsourced) header, so its all
  WP:OR. Jonathanwallace (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Pogrom is a Russian word, used to denote a specific recurring phenomenon that was part of the history of a Russian empire. The very title of this article is a POV extravaganza — a contradiction of terms. Under no circumstances should aspects of the Israeli-Palestinian civil war be allowed to migrate to Pogrom via a merge. Carrite (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Interchangable use of "Arab" and "Muslim" in the article is factually erroneous. Carrite (talk) 01:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out on the article's talk page, the word pogrom is applicable here as per the definition at pogrom. Joe407 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

According the definition used at pogrom the two 20th century incidents do not qualify as such. The earliest example, from the 11th century probably doesn't either. A pogrom is not just a massacre, it is a massacre "either approved or condoned by government or military authorities," according to the entry.Griswaldo (talk) 13:40, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"either approved or condoned by government or military authorities," - As this was often the case, I believe that this was the reason this word is used in the article title. It is a similar question to should an article be called "Death of X", "Murder of X", or "Execution of X". Joe407 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The article creator appears to have intended to create what we know of here in Wikipedia as a List. A List of this type is clearly notable and eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The Arab/Muslim conflation has to be resolved, either now or by starting over.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to the Antisemitism in the Arab world article as indicated on the article's header. By the way, the English language is made up of layers of multiple languages and absorbs words from other languages, so Pogrom is a legit word in English especially as it relates to Jews. But in the Arab world the word "pogrom" was not used in relation to mass killings of Jews, those were just plain "massacres" or "beheadings" or some some such exotic death or torture inflicted on Jews in Arab lands over the centuries. IZAK (talk) 08:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as I do not believe the title is a plausible redirect. Should be covered under the already existing articles on the topic.
  N419BH 06:32, 13 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:13, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Eve Carson

Murder of Eve Carson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Very pretty and very talented girl who got a lot of media attention at the time during a slow news period. Clearly comes under
  WP:VICTIM. Would not be notable if she had not been murdered. Such a shame, but not really notable. Student7 (talk) 18:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - You are actually contradicting your own AFD. "got alot of media attention" that is reason enough for me to say Keep. Well she was murdered and that is why she is notable her case recieved alot of attention from the media, her murder was also connected to another very notable murder. There is also the Eve Carson Scholarship, and her mention on American Idol which was broadcasted troughout America at that time. So article survives WP:NOTNEWS.--BabbaQ (talk) 18:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not really. That is what
  WP:VICTIM is about. Lots of media attention but for essentially being a victim. Period. Not notableStudent7 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep This an article about the crime and its aftermath, so the appropriate place to look for notability guidelines is
  WP:VICTIM. It meets the criminal act notability guideline as it received significant national media attention from a host of reliable sources. Also, the aftermath is ongoing as one of the defendants' cases has yet to be resolved. I'm not sure why this is up for AfD a second time. Nothing has changed since the first decision to keep Ncjon (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. This is not about reliable sources. It happened. It is about someone who would have been unknown otherwise. Unlike (for example), the Lindbergh baby who was the son of a prominent hero. This is nothing like that at all. Not every victim that gets publicity is really notable. Has to be a slow news day, for one thing. Student7 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. You are arguing that the victim of the crime is not notable in her own right. Perhaps that is the case. But that's not the decision in front of us. This article is about the crime. The question is does this crime meet the notability guidelines. This crime has received extensive, ongoing news coverage for nearly three years, therefore the crime meets the notability guideline. Ncjon (talk) 19:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment/Keep She was notable outside of the murder, at least on a local level, as she was the student body president of a major university. In the initial AfD this came up, as there was another similar case, the murder of Lauren Burk. While she was a college student at another university and was killed under similar circumstances, she was not a notable person out of her death.Eauhomme (talk) 04:24, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Lauren Burk/Eve Carson similarity came out in the WP:Articles for deletion/Lauren Burk discussion. Eauhomme (talk) 04:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Nothing has changed since the two last AFDs to justify a deletion. Status quo remains.--VictoriousGastain (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. My nomination is a coincidence. Discovered it only after I nominated it. It's pretty obvious folks. It probably won't be the last. It was not connected to the first one in any way. Student7 (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - References demonstrate continued media coverage from 2008-2010 (at least)
  ^✰ 19:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —BabbaQ (talk) 21:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- looks like its received coverage long after the event, which is an indication that there's some lasting notability there. And since its an article about the incident, not the victim or the murderer, it doesn't run afoul of
  BLP1E. Umbralcorax (talk) 22:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - Notable event. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:03, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Coverage of this event goes beyond news sources into books, such as [16] and [17].
  Phil Bridger (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Snowball keep, again. The event has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; passes various subsections of
  Location (talk) 02:39, 13 April 2011 (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 07:32, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All You Need is Now (song)

All You Need is Now (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable song, did not chart.

]

• Delete per
  All You Need is Now and the song seems to lack any significant coverage. (If it does it's buried in the masses of album reviews, so I'd definately reconsider if someone can find some sources which have encyclopaedic stuff to say about this song). Bob House 884 (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, (song) part of title makes it an unlikely redirect candidate. And IS IS CAPITALIZED IN TITLES, DAMN IT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 04:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Obviously notable band. I looked at 2 album reviews both gave space to the unusual single release. The article is a stub and should be tagged for lack of sources, but the topic easily meets
  WP:NSONGS. -MrFizyx (talk) 07:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Tell me how it "easily meets WP:NSONGS" if there are no sources and you openly admit it will never be more than a stub. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 17:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I said that it is a stub, not that it would never be more. I feel it has/will have sufficient coverage in reliable, published sources for the subject to pass the general criteria in
  WP:NSONGS). This is based on having a paragraph in 2 out of 2 sources that I looked at. It is true that I'm assuming more coverage is out there based on a very limited sample. (Incidentally, the commentary seems negative [18][19]) One can always try a merge and redirect without an AfD, I've no objection to that. -MrFizyx (talk) 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As I said though, I don't think a redirect would work, since 1.) "is" is supposed to be capitalized, and 2.) I don't think too many people would type in "(song)" at the end. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• (1)Obviously, move first, then merge and redirect. (2)Not really an issue. When placed under the proper title, merge and redirect preserves the history and content right where someone would look for it later if they later wanted to create the article. It just saves someone the effort setting up an infobox, whatever. -MrFizyx (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2011 (UTC)`[reply]

• Delete: Non-notable song. No significant coverage. MoondogCoronation (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: if it is deleted, merge content into album article, it seems to be information worth keeping.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So, is AfD broke or what? All these old AfDs hanging around in the AfD list without being closed?--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 03:59, 20 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural linguistics

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

)

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

Less than notable subject matter. The fact that two of the links point to the book you can buy makes it borderline spam. Was refused Speedy as a common mistake new users make. While a new article, that doesn't give it a pass via

]

• Comment A Google Books search turns up a decent number of books covering this term, two in their title. Beyond that, there is possibly the question of whether it stands independent of the related terms as worthy of an article? AllyD (talk) 16:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I run that search by clicking on your link the first two items are two of the books currently cited on the page, and the next 8 are simply books that contain forms of both the word "culture" and "linguistic", per Google's parsing algorithms. Cnilep (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It strikes me that the 3rd one (which Col Warden used in his suggestion below), the 5th one (arguably), and the 8th one (though a reference back to Palmer) are all more substantial than accidental coincidence of two words. As the question mark in my original comment implied, I'm agnostic on whether this is a field deserving of an article in its own right, but the existence of these book references does imply that deletion would be inappropriate, though perhaps a redirect to Ethnolinguistics (as per "Cultural anthropology: an applied perspective") would be appropriate. AllyD (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we reach very similar conclusions: deletion seems unwarranted, but merger somewhere may be appropriate. One problem is deciding where to merge: ethnolinguistics, linguistic anthropology, maybe sociolinguistics, or possibly cognitive linguistics all seem like possibilities. Of course, that question may be discussed beyond AfD. Cnilep (talk) 02:14, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - having books, especially
  reliable secondary sources exist to create a decent article on this subject. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Palmer 1996 calls Cultural Linguistics a proposed new field; Sharifian and Palmer 2007 call it a new field. This does exist, it seems to differ somewhat from either of its "parent" subdisciplines
  notability, and if not, if the information could be merged to cognitive or applied linguistics or ling-anth. Cnilep (talk) 00:02, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge with ethnolinguistics which is the same topic - see Cultural anthropology. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: not quite the same topic, but the differences may be too arcane to matter for an encyclopedia entry. They seem not to matter to that cultural anthropology text, but for example this linguistic anthropology text makes a different division. Cnilep (talk) 04:16, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep per
  WP:BEFORE A thousand hits on Google Books, and more importantly, a thousand hits on Scholar. My condolences to the nom for having been offered to buy something, but a nomination to delete an article should be based on a little more than being peeved at an Amazon link someone added to an article. Anarchangel (talk) 13:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Question: did you find 1,000 mentions of the concept discussed on this page, or (similar to AllyD above) was it 1,000 pages that contained the word "cultural" and the word "linguistic" or some variant of either? Cnilep (talk) 05:34, 14 April 2011 (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 speedy keep as withdrawn by nominator with no outstanding delete votes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Robert J. Kleberg

Robert J. Kleberg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

No assertion of notability. Not sure the references/exlinks demonstrate it either, but I could be wrong. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep- Was briefly confused by his brother's entry in Handbook of Texas Online immediately below his; that notwithstanding, Chief Justice of Austin County and also later DeWitt County; bibliography in Handbook shows mention in four publications spanning 96 years, likely due to being namesake of Kleberg County, so unlikely to be trivial inline mentions, possibly paragraph or page(s). Believe
  WP:N to be firmly established in references, just not yet in article. (Added) Point could be made that publication entries (edit) are likely largely duplicative, and Handbook may have all relevant information. Dru of Id (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Withdrawn -- good call on the county name. http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/hck10 --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 9 April 2011 (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 Speedy Keep - both withdrawn and SNOW. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:37, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wave disk engine

Wave disk engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This is an article about an engine which doesn't exist. One researcher has published some ideas and is doing some experiments which have caught the interest of the popular press and blogs, but it doesn't appear anybody has actually built one of these yet. When they do, wikipedia will need an article on it. Since it doesn't currently exist, neither should this article.

]

I still think we don't need this article, but it's clear that I'm alone in that opinion, so nomination withdrawn. No need to waste people's time on a debate whose outcome is already obvious. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Popular Science has written an article (cited in the article) and that is pretty damn notable if you ask me. As to the idea that no one has built one yet, that is utterly and completely meaningless in the context of an AFD. The article needs work, for sure, but the subject matter has been covered by reliable sources and is notable as an engine theory. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.196.129 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The original premise that "it doesn't appear anybody has actually built one of these yet" is incorrect. From the Popular Science article listed as reference #3: "Michigan researchers have built a prototype of a new auto motor". It also has a picture of the prototype. In the YouTube video under External links, you see the principal researcher holding a prototype of the engine - from back in 2009. --174.97.221.53 (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: has multiple well-known, verifiable sources which state a prototype was built. 174.112.206.60 (talk) 17:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I don't think your disputing notability here (it seems to have recieved a fair bit of coverage) and existance isn't generally a criteria for inclusion. I do agree that this article is in need of some TLC though, Rescue? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Per
  List of weapons in Star Trek is acceptable. This subject has significant coverage from reliable sources. We will have a long-term article on this no matter what is built. It will either be revolutionary or a big dud. In either case, it will continue to be notable and we should have an article that can be refined as more information becomes available. —UncleDouggie (talk) 17:33, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• SNOW CLOSE PLEASE Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:05, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not called for, theres a legitimate debate here for at least a couple days Bob House 884 (talk) 18:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The reason the proponent gave for deletion is factually incorrect. At least on has been built. The article does badly need a criticism section, though.
  talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This article has been nominated for
  talk) 18:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep 3rd party refs are there and although we aren't all driving them yet, it's way past
  WP:CRYSTAL. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep I wouldn't call New Scientist 'popular press' or blogs, and that's where I heard of this gadget before finding this AfD. (BTW I would dispute the reference detail as posted - my UK copy of the magazine is dated 12th March 2011 not 15th as in the reflist. May be a different publication date in the USA, may be a typo.) There's a rather nice diagram, too, which looks rather like a sectioned Nautilus shell. According to the article, a prototype has been shown to the "US Dept of Energy's Advanced Research Projects Agency - Energy". Peridon (talk) 20:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

15th is what it says on the online article. I get it hard copy. Peridon (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Funded by ARPA-E http://arpa-e.energy.gov/ProgramsProjects/OtherProjects/VehicleTechnologies/WaveDiskEngine.aspx htom (talk) 14:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It gets coverage, and is obviously encyclopedic. Dream Focus 03:40, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close AFD. The references are legitimate, and to state this doesn't exist is generally incorrect. There is a prototype. Considering how much coverage this prototype has gotten then, and the fact that the project is being funded by the United States government (DARPA particularly, I think), this is a keeper. I'm calling for closure at this point, despite the above notes, per
  WP:SNOW - while there is, indeed, legitimate discussion, I don't foresee anyone else calling for a deletion. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Oppose closing AFD. This article has been tagged for rescue. Let the AfD time out as usual to provide more time for Article Rescue Squadron members - some of whom only check in once a week - to improve the article. What's the hurry?
  talk) 08:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The article will end in keep, that's pretty obvious. Only person who says delete is the nominator, with a bad rational. If the nominator will withdraw their nomination, and no other people say delete, then we can close this. Dream Focus 08:14, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow keep. This is the subject of extremely wide coverage. Even if it was only hype, it would be sufficiently successful hype to warrant an article. But it's also a research topic with numerous Google Scholar hits. Looks like a pure
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination to me or a very fundamental misunderstanding of our notability criteria. Hans Adler 10:47, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I saw an article on space elevators, I think we should delete both pages because nobody has built a space elevator yet. Larryisgood (talk) 13:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The idea that we shouldn't delete the page merely because the engine hasn't been built is ridiculous. This has reputable references and has been covered in the mainstream media, it should have an article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.89.93 (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep—Sufficiently notable concept.—RJH (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment "Let it snow! Let it snow! Let it snow!" (Sammy Cahn and Jule Styne, 1945) Peridon (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Withdrawn, enough said. --DThomsen8 (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's notable, and something people will want to look up.dougmc (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's definitely notable and deserves recognition on Wikipedia. Aceholiday (talk) 00:15, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is, for all intents and purposes, over. The nomination has been withdrawn and there are no outstanding delete !votes. We are simply waiting for somebody to close the discussion. If you are here intending to !vote keep you may wish to consider that unless you have a new and compelling reason, there isn't an awful lot of point in you doing so. Bob House 884 (talk) 00:50, 12 April 2011 (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 withdrawn, duplicate nomination (non-admin closure). January (talk) 14:16, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling with asmartphone as a guide

Traveling with asmartphone as a guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This article reads like a guide on how to use a smartphone when travelling, but

]

Note: two of us nominated this simultaneously for deletion due to an edit conflict. I withdraw this nomination and will go post on the other one.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Traveling with asmartphone as a guide

Traveling with asmartphone as a guide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

original research / guide per

]

also see

Traveling with a smartphone--Melaen (talk) 14:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: This article reads like a guide on how to use a smartphone when travelling, but wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not guides or instruction manuals. There are probably some interesting encyclopedic things to say about how smartphones are changing the way we travel, but they would need to be written under a different title and in a totally different style. I can't see a way to make this article meet the guidelines without completely rewriting it.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a 'how to' guide. Being useful is not relevant. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as
  WP:NOTHOW. Why didn't this get PRODed, creator made no attempt to explain why the template was removed or address the concerns? Bob House 884 (talk) 17:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well the trouble with PROD is they're not actually obliged to do anything, it's just recommended.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- clearly per
  WP:NOTGUIDE. And yes, PROD is broken; I do not think it should be OK to remove any good-faith maintenance template without explanation or without making any effort to fix the problem. Reyk _YO! 22:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete See above. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 22:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:NOTGUIDE. Also please see page history of Traveling with a smartphone by the same author. Why can't we simply redirect it to Guide book#Digital world and get it over with? Moocha (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Everton FC friendlies 2011

Everton FC friendlies 2011 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

• Delete. Non-notable practice matches of no importance or significance, fails
  WP:EVENT, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete pretty well established that stuff like this goes into the relevent 'My club's results for this year' article so either 2010–11 Everton F.C. season or next seasons depending. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:34, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - these matches are the pre-season warmup games for the 2011–12 Everton F.C. season, so should be mentioned there and there alone, when that article is created next season. GiantSnowman 12:37, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• (e/c)Merge to season article(s). Bretonbanquet (talk) 12:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment we can't merge to something which isn't there & it's not like this information wouldn't be included in the 2011-12 season article anyway. I don't understand what you actually mean by merge here. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the current season article until the more appropriate one is created? I will admit that, with this small amount of "information", it doesn't really matter. Bretonbanquet (talk) 22:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds pretty reasonable, I would imagine the guys who mantain these sorts of articles have some sort of standard way of dealing with the between season intervals so I would be inclined to leave it to them Bob House 884 (talk) 22:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless the 2011–12 Everton F.C. season is created, in which case it can be merged. Daemonic Kangaroo (talk) 12:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not worth a stand-alone article.
  ^talk 16:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Clearly not notable enough to merit a stand alone article. The content isn't completely trivial and could be merged into other articles where appropriate as suggested above. Sir Sputnik (talk) 03:25, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:35, 12 April 2011 (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.  Sandstein  06:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda Wisdom

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

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

non notable line of cards with a bulldog on it Melaen (talk) 13:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I removed speedy tag, as it really didn't apply, but the company still doesn't pass notability guidelines and is a no-show in reliable sources. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:50, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

EqualityMaine

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

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

Not sure there's sufficient assertion of notability here. There are lots of Google News hits, but a lot of them are just quoting the director. There are very few incoming links. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:01, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. [20] supports the claim that it's the oldest and largest group of its kind in Maine. Even more news items if you search for the original name, the Maine Lesbian and Gay Political Alliance. Pburka (talk) 17:19, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This organization has been the driving force behind the gay rights movement in Maine. The article needs to be improved, and I believe that's something that can be done with relatively little effort. –BMRR (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - seems short of WP:ORG. Maybe the MLGPA should have and article and this could be transitioned there? - Haymaker (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. MLGPA is the old name of EqualityMaine. It doesn't make sense to move this article to a name which the organization no longer uses. Pburka (talk) 21:56, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I added a few things I found to the article, there's a fair bit more, but certainly in comparison with the last AfD I !voted in, this subject has a veritable treasure-trove of sourcing. As a result, I believe it demonstrates notability under
  WP:ORG. I'll look and see if the appropriate redirects from older names exist. --joe decker^{talk to me} 01:22, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. News results seem perfectly adequate: this, the Press-Herald, this, to choose a few at random. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:31, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Etherion

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

)

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

PROD removed. I need some manga/anime-people here: notable, merge to somewhere, or nuke? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Nuke This appears to be
  WP:OR and not even plot info, I do not see any place it could be merged as it is not notable outside of it's in universe context. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Nuke per fictional magical weapon of mass destruction... Ehhhh Fictional element that doesn't meet any wikipedia inclusion guidelines for a stand alone article. Merge can be considered if not already mentioned in related articles. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no third-party sources to
  WP:NOTJUSTPLOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete it is not even mentioned in the article for the work in question. That means unless the main article is badly written and or severely lacking in coverage this is likely a minor element of the work that does not need to be covered at all.--76.66.187.132 (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to main article. And no need to be rude to the new editor who created the page. Dream Focus 15:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that a new article called etherion could be created about something totally different than what the article is about now. Google news archive search results from 1898 onward to a gaseous element found in the atmosphere which some did believe exist at that time. Anyone read any books about elements believed to exist at once time, but disproven later? Dream Focus 15:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't be opposed to it if someone could find sources. But there's no point on discussing that now. It would have a completely different focus, and so the current article history would be completely useless. It's not relevant to deciding whether to delete an article about this topic. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:31, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was thinking that when this article is deleted, it'd be history as well, so there'd be no problems recreating it as something else, if someone wanted to take the time to do so. Dream Focus 01:42, 13 April 2011 (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 speedy keep. It seems that there is strong enough support to close this as a speedy keep. (

]

Anne Elizabeth Moore

Anne Elizabeth Moore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Subject not sufficiently notable: Does not meet

]

• Comment - Let me get this straight, "Ok, so I have now found some RS for the book," but you're going ahead with an attempt to blow up this biography anyway?!? Lame. Carrite (talk) 16:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - as co-publisher and editor of Punk Planet, one of the seminal magazines of 1990s American punk rock. That a university has held an exhibition of her zine art might be a clue that this is an individual with sufficient career achievement to merit encyclopedic biography. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. Multiple reviews of her book(s) in major publications like Forbes is more than sufficient to satisfy the GNG as an author, and her editorial credits are also strong indicators of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - a notable enough author of popular books, per sources found. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Article of the individual needs further inline citations, but coverage in multiple distinct
  WP:RS
  seems to be established, although the LA Times review of her book is actually one sentence on its contents (in three paragraphs of their commentary), and is of the book, not the author; its inclusion here is appropriate unless & until the book has its own article.
• Keep - Multiple
  WP:GNG. Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (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 SPEEDY DELETE and/or DELETE per

]

Accounting standards prefix:Talk:Internet/

Accounting standards prefix:Talk:Internet/ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Severely lacking in context and content. At best, nothing more than a dicdef. Taroaldo (talk) 09:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an obviously garbled title with no content that is not already covered by
  Accounting standards. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete or Speedy Maybe speedy delete as a test page, or from lack of a claim of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete High fog factor, low punctuation. Speedy as 'test page' would be polite. Peridon (talk) 20:14, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2011 (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. Insufficient reliable sources to establish it as a species. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Psilocybe cyanofriscosa

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

)

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

This is not a formally described species, which is the impression given in the article. It is something that has been described by the hobbyist community in the sf bay area in recent years. There is no published analysis or description of it, and it has recently been suggested that it may in fact be one and the same as Psilocybe subaeruginosa, but DNA analysis is pending.

The article, at least until there is a published description, cannot possibly ever be adequately sourced with sources that meet

. It contains little information currently, and is potentially misleading (since it makes it appear to be a proper species.)

Eventually I'd like to make an article on the whole caramel capped psilocybe complex (section cyanescens) and in that article integrate the most reliably sourced information I can find about psilocybe "cyanofriscosa," but until I get around to doing so I think this article is probably better deleted.

]

• Comment I wish you luck. I'm not a mycologist, but I do know that Psilocybe is a variable genus according to whether you are a lumper or a splitter. (Heck - most fungi are... Don't talk to me about British orchids.) Possibly make it a redirect to Psilocybe for the time being. Peridon (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly irrelevant comment - I hope the picture can be kept somewhere. I love it! Peridon (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making that a Redirect as a !vote rather than a comment. Either to Psilocybe or perhaps better to Psilocybe subaeruginosa. Peridon (talk) 21:05, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it really is one hell of a picture. I'll see if I can't throw it in to the genus

]

It looks like this species exist only on the internet.

Hodja Nasreddin (talk) 02:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep You want to be responsible, and not give anyone a false impression of the scientific veracity of this alleged species. So don't. Make the status of the thing clear, cite it, job well done. I don't see the problem. It doesn't even matter if it proves to be a false identificaton, if it is all over the internet, it is notable, no? Anarchangel (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Internet presence does not establish notability and your post seems to be a form of

WP:CRYSTAL

.)

I would like to incorporate psilocybe 'cyanofriscosa' somehow (probably in the context of talking about a hobbyist observed phenomenon) into a broader article on the caramel-capped psilocybe complex eventually, although even then I'm not sure how I can possibly get the sourcing up to snuff... I haven't written such an article anyway yet, since it is a pretty complicated project that will require me to dig up a number of older papers that will take more time than I currently have. (Since notability guidelines do not apply to every piece of contents on individual articles, only the topic as a whole, so a mention of 'cyanofriscosa' on a page about the caramel-capped complex as a whole wouldn't have to pass notability muster.)

talk) 14:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep it appears to be a reasonably notable species.
  Nergaal (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please see my other posts on this page, and if you have looked over them and still feel this way, please elaborate. (Specifically, about why it should be kept given that there is (in a literal sense) no way that it has any coverage in reliable sources to establish verifiability or notability, and if it should be kept as a standalone article how I can write that article to meet

talk) 18:46, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete—Not validly published, and no reliable sources to document its existence. It is not possible to expand this article any further (i.e. properly, using reliable sources), and like Kgorman-ucb says, its presence here is misleading. Sasata (talk) 17:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't think it is a requirement that a species be formally described in order for it to have an article. The article could address the fact that there has not yet been a formal description. Even if it is a disputed species, an article may be appropriate, of course addressing the dispute in the lede. That said, I see no evidence of notability in valid published sources for this item, so deletion may still be appropriate. Alternatively, if there is a reliable source discussing that this may be the same as Psilocybe subaeruginosa, but DNA analysis is pending, a redirect to Psilocybe subaeruginosa may be appropriate, with a comment within that article to that effect. Rlendog (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The only source in the article is http://mushroomobserver.org/name/show_name?_js=on&_new=true&id=5353, which says at the top: "Better than it was before. Better…Stronger…Faster! Thanks to donors and Jason!" This is clearly not a reliable source. Those who support retention have not provided
  reliable sources about the subject. Because no reliable sources discuss it, it fails Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Further, a redirect would be inappropriate since there is no evidence of reliable source's having mentioned Psilocybe cyanofriscosa. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 21 April 2011 (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. insufficient reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Promax/BDA

Promax/BDA (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

A promotional article about promoters, written by a COI account to advertise itself. Is there anything salvageable here that isn't sourced to mutually congratulatory trade publications? Orange Mike | Talk 00:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I found a press release [21], with the lead in "The keynote address at the 2011 PromaxBDA conference, taking place June 28 to 30 in New York City, will be delivered by Al Gore, former US VP and chairman and co-founder of Current Media.". There are other references. Yes, it is spammy, yes it needs rewriting, but they are a truly global NPO and there is a ton of coverage about them, and they are over 50 years old. This isn't the same as some new startup trying to make themselves look bigger than they are. The article does need about 6 inches worth of tags, but they are notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:39, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - press releases are not
    reliable evidence for anything except that somebody had access to a printer. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Comment One of these should suffice. [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. There are others as well. Again, I agree the article is junk as is, I'm just saying the NPO is notable. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: All references above are for publicity for a single trade show that has not yet happened, and mostly about a single (most likely paid-for) speech that may have not even been written yet. #2 (news.yahoo.com) is a direct feed of #1 (prnewswire.com); #3 (todotvnews.com) is a free trade magazine of uncertain
        WP:RS-to-churnalism ratio. #4 (rnrevents.com) is a straight non-notable company's own website saying they are a vendor for some service offered by Promax. #5 (tvweek.com) is a brief event summary with such neutral information as that the president of the company says it is "delivering the insight and information that inspires unique ideas and opportunities that drive new revenues". #6 is a single mention in a list of every "award" Larry King has ever received. --Closeapple (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:51, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep for now, giving it the benefit of the doubt, but it needs a total overhaul; there's no more than a stub's worth of appropriate prose. This is not "non-profit" in the sense of a charity; it appears to be a media trade organization to teach each other how to manipulate the public into obedience for profit. It looks like some of this could be copy-paste/copyvio from somewhere: "entertainment and information content marketing leaders" is not the kind of phrase that flows from unbiased writers or other normal human beings. If it doesn't get replaced with good prose soon, it should just be chopped to a stub and re-nominated for deletion based on what sources (if any) are left after the churnalism is gone. --Closeapple (talk) 00:00, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  07:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. All of the coverage I can find looks like self promotion. For a 55 year old organization I would expect to see something more substantial if it were notable. Pburka (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 03:14, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Erik haahr

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

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

No real evidence of notability. Ref list mostly professional listings etc. Possible copyvio, but tag removed by original contributor. Dmol (talk) 06:50, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No evidence of notability in the article or found. AllyD (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is nothing really notable about this article.--Whiteguru (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence of notability. Reaper Eternal (talk) 10:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, clearly non notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - No evidence or real claim of notability. Dennis Brown (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:03, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: No claim of notability.
  talk) 22:28, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No indication of notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:37, 12 April 2011 (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. Arguably, this could be closed as no consensus due to minimal participation, but the result would be the same since this is a BLP. Rlendog (talk) 17:20, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Leroy Walwyn Jr.

Leroy Walwyn Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Non-notable "celebrity chef" lacking GHits and GNEWS of substance. Fails

]

• Delete as it stands. No sourcing that shows notability. Some day, maybe. Good luck. Peridon (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:52, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 9 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zerstorer (And One song)

Zerstorer (And One song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

no notability shown for this song. lacks charting, awards, covers, coverage. nothing satisfying

]
I am also nominating Sometimes (And One song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), another song by the same band. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:CRYSTAL. Pburka (talk) 17:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete All fail notability for songs, lack of coverage and content. Could I take this oppurtunity to ask if anybody can tell me whether the band itself (
  WP:RS at all. Considering putting it all through AfD. Bob House 884 (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:51, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no sources. HHaeyyn89 (talk) 20:28, 15 April 2011 (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 SPEEDY KEEP. No valid reason for deletion presented, the article is referenced (and can presumably be referenced and expanded further) and consensus is strongly in support of all species having articles. Plus, something something

]

Chloris truncata

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

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

insufficient references; contested PROD   —

]

• Keep All species of living things are considered to be notable, and the strong presumption is that additional
  reliable sources can be found. This (and similar) articles should be improved through normal editing, rather than being deleted. Cullen328 (talk) 03:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep- Care of USDA.gov:

1. Hrusa, F., B. Ertter, A. Sanders, G. Leppig, and E. Dean. 2002. Catalog of non-native vascular plants occurring spontaneously in California beyond those addressed in The Jepson Manual. Part I. Madroño 49: 61-98. CA Literature
2. Wagner, W.L., D.R. Herbst, and S.H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai'i, 2 vols. University of Hawaii Press, Bishop Museum, Honolulu.

Dru of Id (talk) 03:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article you are referring to has since been referenced with 2 references. While this may not seem like many, you need to take into account that the article is a stub, and that most other stubs around species of organisms only have 2 or three references. If you deleted all of these articles, then wikipedia's coverage of species would be very dismal indeed. This article needs to be improved by normal editing not deletion. If need be, a tag should be added to the article, citing that it requires additional referencing. This article should also be added to categories and a WikiProject so as to advertise its presence to other wikipedians who could expand and improve its quality and provide additional referencing. (talk), 9 April 2011 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason given for deletion. A quick Google search reveals that this species exists, and if the article needs better references, they can be added later. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 06:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agree, there is no valid reason given for deletion.
  WP:INHERENT applies. AfD seems spurious after refutation of PROD. Taroaldo (talk) 07:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep with 374 hits on Google Scholar: recommend
  WP:BEFORE to the proposer. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep, species of plants are notable. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a living thing. "Insufficient references" is not a valid criteria to EVER bring an article to
  AFD, regardless of the subject matter. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:08, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:49, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 9 April 2011 (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. BigDom (talk) 10:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DJGolardo

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

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

Non-notable DJ (but has assertions of notability). Fails

]

Delete Not notable. Might userfy and wati for notability, but I doubt that will happen. Buggie111 (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't spent the time to prove or disprove notability, but the article was created by User:DJGolardo. Reads like self-promotion to me. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:02, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete BLP for which I am unable to find any reliable, secondary sources. --joe decker^{talk to me} 05:09, 17 April 2011 (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. BigDom (talk) 11:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

187 in popular culture

187 in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Essentially unreferenced (1 reference, out of 61 bullets, which really doesn't relate to what it's referencing) and utterly trivial list of mentions of "187" in various pop culture sources. Looks like it was created as a fork from 187 (number), but none of the stuff listed on this page justifies maintaining it as a separate list. There's really no need to create a redirect, as most people looking for stuff here are not going to type "187 in popular culture"; they'll simple type "187", follow the hat note, and find the equally overstuffed and unreferenced article on the number, which is not a candidate for deletion. I had tagged this as a prod last year, but it was quickly unprodded as "probably will be a controversial deletion-not suited for PROD". Horologium (talk) 02:13, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This was created specifically to keep this stuff out of the
  187 (murder) article (not 187 or 187 (number)) which was a magnet for this kind of trivia. I don't care if this is deleted, but know that this will just create problems for the 187 article again. See my comments at Talk:187 in popular culture. -- œ^™ 02:20, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'd not looked at the murder article until seeing your comment, but the number article is cluttered with cruft similar to what is in this page. If this article is retained, someone is going to need to go through 187 (number) with an atomic-powered flamethrower to burn out the junk in that article. My personal preference would be to delete this article and scrub the cruft from the other article, but YMMV. Horologium (talk) 02:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta love how H knew it was a fork of something, he just didn't know what... How much do

WP:IDL something? If it is a lot, "I" may even employ the use of modern or even sci-fi weapons as an analogy for how "I" will remove it from Wikipedia. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Nothing more than listcruft. While I appreciate wanting to keep crap out of more legitimate articles, that doesn't lend credibility to this one. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as listcruft. This doesn't need merging as it is pretty much unsourced. Dennis Brown (talk) 13:58, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This article is poorly named.
  187 (murder) to the more accurate California Penal Code Section 187 and deleting or merging this article. Pburka (talk) 17:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

So true. People just can't get enough of the naming of

Lucius Septimius Severus, born in Leptis Magna, as legate of Lyonnais in Gaul. Will there even be enough space in that article to contain all the references, I wonder? Debunked. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• strong delete I'm sick and tired of people saying "if you delete this terrible article this unsourced material will be put back into the other articles" To follow that kind of logic is to say we should abandon core wikipedia principles just to save a fight. If you have that attitude why not just let some of those difficult recurring people over at long term abuse have their way? it would save us the fight to allow them their way after all. HominidMachinae (talk) 22:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Not everyone shares your view that

  trivia sections and 'in pop culture' articles equate to a form of "abuse", much less being against "core wikipedia principles", there's a big difference, so your analogy fails. Some users feel these lists have worth, and there's precedence for splitting out similar lists from the main article once they start getting too long, see Category:Topics in popular culture for a whole slew of them. As for it being unsourced, these types of lists don't need conventional 'sources' as each item is itself a primary source: articles need to be verifiable right? So to verify whether the term appears in a particular cited song all one needs to do is listen to the song. Now, keeping it from collecting indescriminate listcruft is a different question. Some would say that citing secondary sources that quote the artist quoting the term is redundant, but at least it would keep out the non-notable stuff. -- œ^™ 17:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

I should clarify that my analogy was referring to the idea of "well if this article gets deleted the cruft will be put back in the article" I think that's unnecessarily fatalistic to assume that unsourced material can never be removed from the wiki so we should find some sewer to dump it all in. It's akin to saying that if all a really difficult editor wants is to insert one persistent error (and that's what a good chunk of LTA is), we should let them. HominidMachinae (talk) 19:39, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete The fact that many songs & other material references California Penal Code 187 is worth noting in the
  187 (murder) article, or its successor, but the entire list is listcruft. And it's also woefully incomplete, leaving out that Bobby Higginson and Mike Stanley each have 187 career home runs. :-) Ma^t_chups 01:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete unreferenced original research does not belong. PlusPlusDave (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2011 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppeteer -- œ^™ 07:57, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It can all be checked up by looking up in the songs etc that each line quotes from. This seems to be a case of "one man's cruft/trivia is another man's important relevant matter". Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Anthony Appleyard. I will now pick 3 items at random from the article.

1. Sublime April 29, 1992 (Miami) Sublime Spot
2. Absolute Power Lyrics
3. Memorable quotes for Menace II Society (1993), IMDb

Simple statements of inclusion such as these can be cited easily, with a much lower standard of sourcing than for potentially disputable ones. Anarchangel (talk) 14:29, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there is nothing in our guidelines and policies which justifies a lower standard for citation as you state, and all three of the sources you have cited fail our sourcing guidelines, both for reliability (all three; the quotes section of IMDB is user-created and subjective) and for contributory copyright violation (all lyrics sites are massive copyright violators). Horologium (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, none of those sources directly support the claim that "187" is being used in reference to the California Penal Code or murder. You might infer that from the context of the lyrics or quotes, but that's

WP:Original research. Pburka (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete per HominidMachinae. If nobody wants this trivia cruft in articles, then why in the world would we dedicate an entire article to it?!? Tavix |  Talk  19:54, 16 April 2011 (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 Result was 'redirect. Even the delete !votes don't seem to object to a redirect. There is question as to whether the redirect will be useful, but redirects are cheap. Don't see a need to protect at this point, as there has not been any edit warring over maintaining a redirect, and User:Fanfare25 has been indefinitely blocked. Rlendog (talk) 17:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pear (character)

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

)

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

PROD was contested by article creator and another editor. Article is about a minor character in a web series (The Annoying Orange) that already has a

]

• Strong Speedy Delete This article is not at all notable. The section at the annoying orange page is more than enough. This article is unreferenced, short, poorly written, contains original research and is mostly in-universe writing. JDDJS (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article does list at least three references that do show that sometimes the character is a MAJOR character. It may be short and poorly written, but it is an article that informs the reader of a major character in a web-series, so the reason for speedy delete is an abomonation Fanfare25 (talk) 15:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked user. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The article does list at least three references" that is a complete lie. There are (currently) no references at all on that page. And seeing how your a new editor and going by your edits so far, you are probably completely unaware of the notability guidelines. I suggest your familiarize yourself with them at WP:Notability before you call a speedy delete "an abomonation". JDDJS (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but Edit The article does give reference to a major character in a web series, so Wikipedia should keep the article. However, the article may need more improvement. WikiContestor00 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Ignore comments from the sock. JDDJS (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

@Fanfare25, I thin you should replace "three references" with "three links." Just so that others don't belive that you lie. Anyways, Weak Keep The article does include a major character in a web-series, but must have a MAJOR reorganization and more edit, because the article is brief. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aruda556 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

Blocked user. JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Redundant to the paragraph on the
  List of The Annoying Orange characters and then see where it goes from there Bob House 884 (talk) 17:36, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:45, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to the aforementioned section. Doesn't cost, and someone might want to find it. Personally, I can't see why, but everyone to their own tastes (as the old lady said when she kissed the cow). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peridon (talk • contribs)
• Redirect per Peridon. The delete !votes have no merit when there's clearly a real fictional element and a redirect target. Protect the redirect in case of edit warring, should the need arise. Jclemens (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anybody voting delete here is opposed to a redirect, just didnt really occur to me that anybody would ever search for 'Pear(character)'. I'm interested to hear what possible reason there could be for protecting this page though. Bob House 884 (talk) 10:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the redirect although like Bob Hose said I doubt anybody would actually look it up. I'm pretty sure that Jclemens wants to protect it so that Fanfare or other editors don't keep trying to recreate the page. JDDJS (talk) 14:38, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's not uncommon when an article is reduced to a redirect. Protection is set at sysop level so that someone looks things up before it can be changed back to an article. Peridon (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well as I'm not entirely sure what the usual procedure is, I'll leave it to the closing admin. I'm totally against making any exception here though, it feels like a massive assumption of bad faith when the editor in question hasn't shown any 'form' and has definately (if in a slightly misguided way due to being a new user) tried to engage with the deletion process. Protection is a last resort so imo we should wait to see if there is a problem before we use it. Bob House 884 (talk) 22:12, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete On this discussion, I see no reason to change anything about the web-series character, since he already has a section about himself in

) 01:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC) [reply]

I doubt anyone would want to look it-up. It is barely reference, poorly written, and brief. However, it could be redirected, yet I still doubt anyone would look it up. Montono (talk) 00:53, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked user JDDJS (talk) 00:00, 15 April 2011 (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 per

]

Childproofing

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

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

Strong indication of copyvio (google), but failing that,

]

• Strong Keep You kind of put yourself in a spot when you claim copyvio but link to a search page referencing a sentence fragment that is arguably common, so I have to pass on that criteria as you have presented nothing that substantiates your claims. What we are left with is wp:or (not a reason for delete, instead a reason to edit), wp:npov (again, not a legitimate claim for delete) and wp:dic, which is a reason to transwiki, not delete. In this instance, the topic of "childproofing" is so ingrained in American culture, I find it difficult to believe that an article can't be written that is more than a dictionary definition. Actually, I can imagine dozens of pages with citations that could be written on the subject and easily verified from reliable sources. This article in particular, falls well short of being a "good" article in every possible manner, but every single flaw is correctable with editing, and simply put, there is no valid guideline presented that would justify deleting this article that has been stated, nor can I think of one. Dennis Brown (talk) 02:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Obvious notability. If you don't like part of it, you can edit it, you know. --
  talk
  ) 03:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Keep The topic is clearly notable. Ask any modern parent. Borock (talk) 03:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The nomination seems a bit bizarre, how can you accuse it of copyvio just by linking to a google search? You'd need to check each site to see if it's a mirror of wikipedia. It's a notable topic that needs improving not deleting.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• keep even a cursory search finds thousands of reliable sources, articles, even government agencies from multiple countries. This is up there for the most notable topic I've ever seen on AFD. HominidMachinae (talk) 23:31, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator withdrawn - fair enough; sorry to have bothered you. With no references at all, I don't see what can be saved - but yes, OK, if an article could be written - that's fine. Maybe it is more of an American term; I'm English, and considered that it'd be too wooly a concept to have more than a dictionary definition type piece or opinion (OR, non-neutral). But I'm happy to accept I'm wrong. Cheers,  Chzz  ►  00:01, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can easily understand the nomination,

]

Fair enough, none of us actually provided any sources. I looked through the google scholar results on child-proofing and found some research on the impacts of child-proofing the home (eg. [27], [28] [29], [30]). The concept's sometimes referred to by jargon like "in-home injury prevention practices for infants" or "multifactorial injury prevention interventions". Due to pay walls, I can't read further than the abstracts on most, but there's enough to convince me that an article could be written on this in theory.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, maybe this would be best as a merge/redirect to Injury prevention.--Physics is all gnomes (talk) 15:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Child-proofing isn't necessarily for injury prevention. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep Searched it, saw all of the pages on page 1, all is a wikipedia mirror and the article itself is good. Please specify the site. Not google. It is very notable too. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 16:13, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've tried to add some structure, but some additional help on the article would be welcomed. Dennis Brown (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2011 (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. postdlf (talk) 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Zillya!

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

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

This software fails the

]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find any significant coverage. Fails
  talk) 22:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 17:38, 12 April 2011 (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 Speedy Delete per

]

O'Connell Street (disambiguation)

O'Connell Street (disambiguation) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

This page is not needed as long as we have only two entries. PatGallacher (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

• Speedy delete per
  Who is this guy? | Wanna talk about it? 01:25, 9 April 2011 (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:56, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Somari

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

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

Not one single source is recognized as a reliable source, and it has no reception whatsoever. Relies heavily on user blogs and self-published content in order to source the article. The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No evidence of
  notability. I found two good sources, but I doubt there are any others. A hack is very rarely notable, and it would take a WHOLE lot more then 2 sources. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 02:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Keep - While there may not be enough sources to establish notability for a full article, there are enough to still warrant it's existence on Wikipedia. A merge discussion could be made to
    Sonic the Hedgehog (series)'s legacy section. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The GamesRadar source is a step in the right direction, but as far as the GameSpy reference is concerned, who is "Fragmaster"? Is it an actual review by the site's staff (which they do), or is it a user-submitted review (which they also do)? It seems like the latter. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. There are currently only three sources that are considered reliable that make the slightest mention of Somari, and only one of them is a solid source that also goes into non-trivial detail on it. As such, the entire article would be based around one single source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Gamespy: If you put use the search function of the site and search for Somari it says "author: staff" so it appears the article was written by the staff. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep While there isn't a ton of WP:RS, holy cow there surely seems to be an insane amount of buzz on other sites. IMO, this is one of those times when better judgement says that the title is notable, even if the New York Times hasn't covered extensively. Keeping within the spirit of the guidelines (and without even having to rely on
  WP:IAR) I think this is an acceptable subject. I notice this has gotten a lot of attention (5th AFD, wow...) but in the end, I think that if you follow the spirit of what we are trying to do at Wikipedia, there is plenty of room for this subject. Dennis Brown (talk) 14:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Not an applicable reason to keep something, and it's not something we can measure. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 17:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are welcome to your opinion, but the guidelines are just that: guidelines. This means that it is expected that good judgement dictates when
      WP:IAR would apply. At the very heart of Wikipedia is the concept that if a guideline is in way of improving the encyclopedia, then it should be ignored. It this instance, it doesn't require ignoring very hard, considering the vast amount of coverage that the game has gotten, albeit not in reliable sources. Keeping it improves Wikipedia more than deleting it, so I am obligated to say keep. You are welcome to disagree on my interpretation of the guidelines, but the guidelines clearly indicate there are times when the !rules should be bent, and were designed specifically so they could be bent. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]

I'm not quite sure how to write on this page but anyways....Every single source on this page was done by me. I searched the whole internet and these are the best I can find. If you want me to add reception section I can do that as well to but what do you expect IT'S A PIRATE GAME! IT WON'T HAVE THAT MANY RELIABLE SOURCES! If the page doesn't fit the po;licy help me change it! I tried to Wikify the article as much as I can. It be a lot better If I got some help....Radix Z

I searched every single reliable source that I could find and I could only find three sources - the two that Blake found and one from MTV Multiplayer. That is simply not enough to warrant an article. It's not a good idea to argue that it's effectively non-notable. As much as we would like to make this article work, you're asking us to put a square peg through a brick wall. It won't work. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:21, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There is no minimum number of sources that need to be cited to establish notability.

WP:N suggests that "Multiple sources are generally expected," true, but three sources is multiple sources. Since Somari has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, we must presume that it satisfies the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. The burden is on the nom to prove that although the topic meets the notability criteria, it is nevertheless not appropriate for a stand-alone article. -Thibbs (talk) 00:07, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This debate has been included in the

list of video game related deletion discussions. (G·N·B·S·RS·Talk) • Gene93k (talk) 20:43, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - This is a well-known and notable pirate cart. There are RSes available that cover the game that could still be added to the article (e.g. [31]). I suggest we improve rather than delete the article. If Radix Z wants to improve the article then let's give him encouragement and help. -Thibbs (talk) 23:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are looking at a hack that is not acknowledged at any given point by its creators. What defines the notability of a pirate cart? Being covered in a single reliable source in non-trivial detail? As we can see, GamesRadar is the only reliable source that even provides meager coverage of the cart, as the GameSpy link does not qualify as a reliable source due to being not covered by GameSpy's editorial policy or process. As such, you are arguing that this article should be kept and sourced from one single source, which is simply not acceptable. And as for the notion that the article should be improved, again, square peg brick wall. How do you propose we improve it? I have checked every single source recognized as a reliable source for video games and found only one non-trivial mention. I provide no exaggeration when I say that it is impossible to improve this article without somehow causing the game to receive more attention. There is nothing to improve. This is only slightly more notable than any other rom hack. How do you propose that we help any more than we have? Please, provide even the slightest piece of advice as to what anyone can do to make this article notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:50, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK so according to what you've just said, the article is as well-written as it is possible to do so based on RSes and it is covered by at least one RS (earlier you acknowledged 3). The article's been up since 2003 and has survived multiple prior AfDs. With 300k+ Ghits, you've got to admit that the game is well-known or at least widely-discussed. If you're asking that the only well-written RS-based article on the internet be deleted based on the fact that 3 RSes isn't notability enough then I have to disagree.
      Another big problem is that the topic of pirate games and pirate carts and commercial rom hacks is quite clearly a notable topic that is lacking meaningful coverage on Wikipedia. Of the few examples of actually notable pirate versions, Somari is one of the best known. I could see an argument for merging this article into a general article on pirate NES carts or on video game piracy as a whole, perhaps, but such an article doesn't seem to exist. To simply delete this article seems like it would have more negatives for Wikipedia than positives. With this in mind, I'll modify my vote to "keep with the future possibility of a merge." -Thibbs (talk) 13:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • One other quick note: when you said "[Somari is] a hack that is not acknowledged at any given point by its creators," this isn't accurate. The game was produced in hard-copy with box-art and manuals. Team Someri definitely acknowledged the game. So on top of 3rd party RSes previously mentioned, the article could also presumably be improved by
        SPSes. -Thibbs (talk) 13:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • "Its creators" are the people who this hack comes from - Sega and Nintendo. There is stricter notability guidelines for something of this sort, merely being covered in one non-trivial source is not enough to warrant an article in a fan-made game when there's no acknowledgment by the creators of the inspiring work. Also, your argument seeks to say that because the larger topic of pirate rom hacks lacks coverage on Wikipedia, we must cover it with this article. What makes this special? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 14:45, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • No I'm saying that because the larger topic of pirate rom hacks lacks coverage on Wikipedia we cannot merge this article into that one. Given that there are few (although I still don't think too few) RSes covering Somari, I'd be open to the idea of a merge but sadly such an option is not available. So if the question is keep or delete then I say err on the side of caution and keep. If a future AfD is filed then perhaps the merge option would be available. -Thibbs (talk) 15:19, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          Also I see nothing in WP:N that requires a derivative work to be acknowledged by its originating source's creators. So Nintendo and Sega don't acknowledge the existence of unlicensed hacks of their works. So what? -Thibbs (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • My answer to "So what?" is to say that with such a subject, especially one that is hugely lacking in reliable sources, the fact that Nintendo and Sega give no acknowledgment to its existence makes it no more worthy of inclusion than basically every other ROM hack. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • That's an arbitrary stick to measure by. You're never going to find a company that discusses illegal hacks of its works unless you're talking about a lawsuit. Acknowledgment of the subject of a WP article by a specific source has never been a requirement for inclusion. The rule is that sources on a topic must be reliable not that they must come from closely-related companies. Why should the Somari article be held to a different standard than any other video game article? I'm pretty sure it shouldn't. -Thibbs (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You really ought to make sure that you aren't arguing for different standards. Somari is not a video game, it is a hack of a video game. A hack that has been mentioned in a non-trivial sense in one single reliable source out there. The standards we use for video game articles do not apply to Somari because often, we look at video games, especially retail ones, with a presumption that they have some notability, which is why we have many articles on games that lack references - because they probably have some. We do not use this lenient view on video games for hacks because they are NOT presumed notable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 22:13, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Well that has nothing to do with the inappropriate requirement you're seeking to impose on pirate games that they must be acknowledged by the company/companies that are being ripped off. I also disagree that retail video games are presumptively notable. Regarding Somari, I see upwards of 5 RSes now (after what Jiiimbooh posted below) and while the sources aren't as stellar as they are for some other games, I still think that the clear renown of the game (see 300k+ Ghits comment above) argues for the fact that Wikipedia would not be improved by deleting this article but instead it would be a net negative. -Thibbs (talk) 23:30, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not arbitrary. It is, not at any point, inappropriate to say that a fan game should have some acknowledgment that it exists - especially when the fan game's non-trivial coverage in reliable sources rounds down to zero. Also, besides the fact that Google hits are never a good reason to make an article about something, you do realize that Somari is not just a fan-made rom hack, right? If we search for "Somari -Sonic -Mario -forums -boards -youtube" we lose 100,000 hits and are at about 250,000. Searching "Somari Mario Sonic" returns 38,500 hits. After removing forums, boards, and youtube from the equation, we have 7,730 results. Searching in the Google Search Engine that only displays reliable sources on video games brings only five URLs - one is a user video, and four are the same source repeated four times. Basically if you are looking at JUST Google hits, you have 340,000. If you are discerning and not indiscriminately assuming every site found on Google is usable as evidence of this article's notability, there are five. As for the below mentioned sources, it is not demonstrative of a notable subject when two of the sources are brief mentions as he explicitly states and one is not verified as a reliable source. Notability is not based on "how many reliable sources mention a subject", it's about finding sources that mention them in a non-trivial detail. Most of the sources simply acknowledge that it exists, not that it is important. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said it's inappropriate to require RSes. I said it's inappropriate to require acknowledgment from Nintendo and Sega. I stand by that. So we both agree that there are few RSes that exist covering Somari and we both agree that of these few, fewer yet cover it in a non-trivial manner. What we are left with is that you think that the RSes are insufficient to demonstrate notability and on the other hand I think that they do just barely demonstrate notability especially when the general renown of the topic is taken into account. So it's just a judgment call that we fall on opposite sides of. -Thibbs (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article would have no significant coverage from reliable sources without GamesRadar. Effectively, this article will depend solely on GamesRadar with the other sources merely giving acknowledgment to it. There are only three sources that can even be used, and two of them are brief mentions. I would hardly look at a couple of brief mentions and a more significant mention as being enough to make a type of game that is given extreme scrutiny and is assumed non-notable unless otherwise proven. The fact of the matter is that even a digital download on WiiWare has more presumed notability, because it is sold through an official channel that is frequented regularly, whereas Somari is obtained only by those scouring the web. It's not "out in the open" like retail games, so why should it have the same standard as them? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 00:51, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes I'm aware that we disagree about whether the RSes are sufficient. No need to continue hammering that point. It's a difference of opinion. Neither one of us is objectively "wrong" on that issue. As for why all articles are held to the same standards, the reason is that Wikipedia isn't censored. We apply the same rules to all articles regardless of our personal distaste for the topics. If we're applying specialized inclusion criteria to individual articles in order to give ourselves a reason to vote "delete" then it's just the same thing as saying
          I don't like it. -Thibbs (talk) 01:39, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • It has nothing to do with
            WP:IDONTLIKEIT; if it did, I would not have created Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead, which actually did receive significant coverage from multiple reliable sources. Applying stricter standards to fan-works is not censorship, it's common sense. It's no more censorship than deleting a fanfiction about Mario and Sonic. A notable fan-made ROM hack is the exception to the general rule that ROM hacks are not notable. When an article on a fan-made game is created, it is immediately considered non-notable if it lacks reception, which this subject does. There is no difference of opinion in these. Why is the Spanish site a reliable source? And why is the GameSpy source, which is a part of GameSpy's series of fan sites, a reliable source? Why are the mentions in the MTV and Siliconera web sites considered non-trivial? Just because you disagree does not entail you to simply say that they are non-trivial without explaining. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 01:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • If you create new ad-hoc policies and guidelines on the fly that only apply to the article you're seeking to delete then it looks indistinguishable from IDONTLIKEIT. You claim that one of the requirements for Somari (and only Somari) is that it has to have been acknowledged by Nintendo and/or Sega. That is incorrect no matter how you look at it. Fan-works often fail WP:N. Nobody has to make up additional requirements in order to vote "delete." Your argument that Somari's sources fail to demonstrate notability is valid. I disagree with it, but it's valid. Your argument that special new requirements should be applied to Somari alone (or possibly with other members of a class you have lumped Somari into) is quite invalid. -Thibbs (talk) 02:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You also asked about why I thought the RSes were sufficient. First I'll assume that we agree that the GamesRadar source is fine. Beyond that I see trivial to borderline-significant coverage in the other RSes. Taken as a whole and in light of the obvious renown of the game within the rest of the non-RS internet, I think there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate Notability. It's a borderline case but as I said earlier, I'll err on the side of caution in this case. -Thibbs (talk) 02:20, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to somewhere. There should totally be one on hacks, and if there's not, then I'm going to create one. Doesn't seem to pass WP requirements for Wikipedia and stuff, but it's a shame to allow such an article be lost forever. Harry Blue5 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it could be redirected to
    Sonic the Hedgehog (series) and protected. That way the history won't be lost for if this does somehow become notable, but nobody will be able to create it without first contacting an admin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blake (talk • contribs
    )
• Delete – I have to agree with NARH here, there is not a single reliable source out there, nor nothing much even halfway reliable to build an article from. Having looked at the above reasons for retention as well as the others from the previous AFDs, I was surprised to see it kept on such flimsy rationales (but then again the last deletion discussion on this was from 2007, which was also improperly closed BTW, so perhaps it was expected). –MuZemike 15:29, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per MuZemike and Thumperward. Plus, all those afds and still the articles condition has not improved enough. If the needed sources can be found somehow to build a sound article, then try so in a sandbox. Edit: « ₣M₣ » 21:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
• Comment These sources showed up in a Google News Search and aren't in the article: mtv news (only brief mention), 3djuegos (Spanish) Siliconera (only brief mention). [EDIT:Corrected name of website] Jiiimbooh (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe that 3ejuegos is a reliable source. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I don't consider those substantive enough to establish notability you got a mention in one and a picture of it in another. That's nowhere close to significant coverage. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Spanish goes into more detail, but I'm not sure it's reliable. I was hoping a Spanish gamer or someone else would know. These sources were also meant to be a compliment to the sources already mentioned or listed in the article. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • For the record: "Since January 2010, 3DJuegos has been the most frequently visited gaming magazine in Spain according to data controlled by the Office of Justification for Distribution (OJD), with 3.8 million unique users, 6.3 million visits and 29.8 million page views for that month." This info comes from the Spanish article, but it's properly sourced and verifiable. The magazine describes itself as a team of journalists and professionals ("Un equipo de periodistas y profesionales") on its website. 3DJuegos is widely cited on es.wiki and even to a small degree on pt.wiki. -Thibbs (talk) 01:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, that's entirely useful information - THe use of 3DJuegos would be great on some articles I'm working on. However, the point is moot - even two sources is not enough. You're discussing the arbitrary nature of some of the arguments, yet you attempt to arbitrarily say that the number of sources is what makes the article worth existing, when the sources, for the most part, give very limited coverage of it. By the way, I removed all sources with the exception of 3D Juegos, GamesRadar, and Siliconera. None of the other sources fulfilled Wikipedia's Reliable sources or Verifiability policies. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's nothing arbitrary about voting keep on an topic whose notability is demonstrated by multiple RSes. I'll assume good faith here, but your removal of those sources shows questionable judgment. Several of them (e.g. Screw Attack and Atari HQ) show up on
            WP:VG/RS without either the "X"-mark for "no" or the "!!!"-mark for "limited use." At best we can say that there's no consensus that they're reliable but that doesn't automatically make them "unusable sources." It just means that no discussion has taken place regarding them yet. Incidentally, other sources you've rejected as unreliable also appear on that list (e.g. 3D Juegos). -Thibbs (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • If no discussion exists on them, it does not make them usable. If you look at the link shown next to Screw Attack, it reads from one prominent editor of WP:VG/RS: "I don't remember where the past discussion is archived, but I believe any Screwattack show published on GameTrailers.com is acceptable. But generally they should be avoided. Someone else may want to chime in about this though." But that is moot, since it is a user blog, not a staff blog. Being on WP:VG/RS indicates that they exist - not that they are reliable or unreliable unless otherwise noted. Basically, in looking at those three web sites you mentioned, ask yourself this: would this article pass GA with these sources without any verification of their usability as a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:58, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • And yet somehow I doubt that it would be kosher for you to go ahead and put "X" marks next to the entries for those three sources at WP:VG/RS just yet. I guess I'm just saying I don't feel totally comfortable when the main person busy dismantling the article as it stands is the nom for its ongoing AfD... I dunno. Maybe that's a normal part of the AfD process, though. -Thibbs (talk) 12:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • The only reason that there aren't Xes next to their names is because they haven't been discussed. Just because they are not verified as unreliable does not make them reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:18, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                  • The same logic applies when we say that just because they are not verified as reliable does not make them unreliable (as claimed in your edit summary). -Thibbs (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. Again, what would happen if this went to GA? By the fact that it could not pass GA with unverified sources, they cannot be used. Why not throw forums up that aren't verified either? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:54, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Things don't become reliable just because they're discussed. They're either reliable or not and the discussion is only a means of determining that fact. If a discussion on 3D Juegos is held and the consensus is that it's reliable then presumably it's always been reliable. It didn't only become reliable when Wiki editors discussed it. If an article was being held back from GA status only because it relied heavily on such a source then I imagine that a discussion would take place regarding the source. GA status wouldn't be withheld forever due to uncertainty about the RS status of the reference. We don't use forums because they are essentially never reliable. You'll notice that no forums are listed at WP:VG/RS. In fact that list isn't a list of every gaming-related website on the internet. It's just a list of sources that editors believe might be RSes but that haven't been discussed yet. Why you would strip sources that might be RSes (with an edit summary claiming that they have been "identified as unreliable") from an article you have nominated for deletion is beyond me. -Thibbs (talk) 19:15, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Could we keep the hair splitting down to nonexistence? Yes, they are either reliable or not. And Wikipedia uses 100% reliable, 0% unverified, 0% unreliable. The whole point of using only reliable sources is because we can actually verify if the information is accurate. Explain to me, right now, how we can verify the validity or accuracy of one single source that I removed. There is no guideline or policy that suggests that a source may be used if it "seems" like it's reliable, or "hasn't been proven" unreliable. The very first line of the RS guideline reads: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources". It doesn't say "and sources that could be reliable but we're not sure". And as for your comment, it would be withheld if we had no idea the validity of sources. That is how the GA process works. If a source is questionable, the nominator either demonstrates that they are known for their accuracy, editorial policy, and fact checking, the source is removed due to lack of the above mentioned elements, or the GA nomination fails for lack of cooperation in using only verified reliable sources. There is no entitlement to use a source that is not verified as reliable just because it might be reliable in theory. If we do not know if a web site is reliable, then how is it any different than a source that we know is unreliable? How can we use a source that we don't know is trustworthy? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:49, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, I removed the Spanish source, as it was clearly from a forum. You really need to actually look at the sources instead of just listing them without any context. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:08, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• With so many sources stripped out it makes most of this AfD look like nonsense to a newcomer. Why so much discussion of whether the sources are RSes or not? There are no sources. Someone's deleted them all after nominating the article for AfD on a claim that they have been identified (possibly by he himself) as unreliable. Again I'm not so familiar with AfD. Maybe this is normal but it sure looks shabby. Anyway I'm retiring from this discussion. We're just going around in circles at this point. -Thibbs (talk) 20:33, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• As a final response, Thibbs, this discussion goes in circles because that is what you lead it in. Instead of properly explaining why one single source removed should remain, you make thinly veiled accusations of bad faith and argue that because a source could, in theory, be reliable, it should be included anyway. For the closing administrator, I hope that you take into account not the number of people voting keep or delete, but rather, the arguments. Can an article sustain itself with one single non-trivial reliable source? Can that one source manage to verify all of the unverified content in the article? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:20, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Look, I apologize if you feel I've assumed bad faith. I've seen you edit and I'm sure you do have Wikipedia's best interests at heart. It just seems that your edits that stripped sources were inappropriate. I'm certain you meant no harm and it's quite possibly within the rules for AfD, but if it is then I think it shouldn't be. Anyway I'm sorry if you felt attacked. It was not intended personally. -Thibbs (talk) 21:38, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is that you are still calling my actions inappropriate without explaining why these sources should not be removed in the first place. It's a red herring if I ever did see one. Unless you can explain the validity of the sources, removing them was perfectly appropriate. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep You know there is something wrong when the Delete votes say, here are two good sources but delete. Sources so far: the eight in the article (including
  1Up.com
  . Sources matter; everything else is just talk.

AFD quotes that prove piracy is evil and must be stopped by any means necessary, especially when I don't profit from it personally:

AFD #Whatever it actually was (2nd nomination):

"Delete, possible Speedy - Somari only returns 225 000 hits on Google[1]. --Kuroki Mio 2006 19:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)"

Stealth Keep vote or just WTF? 225k hits...

(4th nomination): Nominator:

"Lets say I wanted to transfer a Genesis game to NES the same way Somari did, and I changed the characters to whatever I wanted and retitled the game and gave it to the video game pirating people, would that mean that my game deserves an article?"...

(5th nomination)

"Delete - No evidence of notability. I found two good sources, but..."

Anarchangel (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But on the other hand, the rationales for retention in the previous AFD include 'there might be reliable sources out there' as in the

it's notable without checking for sources in any detail as in the 3rd and 2nd AFDs, and, well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Somari is from 2004, which I think is going a bit far back (we're basically talking about an entirely different environment back then). Anyhow, perhaps arguments on both sides in the previous AFDs were rather poor and didn't concentrate on anything substantive. Basically, I want coverage on the game itself from only a couple of reliable sources and not just a mere one-sentence mention or photo of the game. There is one that was mentioned above which might, and I might reconsider my !vote if a second one can be found. –MuZemike 17:58, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Do the Russian sources I brought up sway you to reconsider? -Thibbs (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the sources that you found are not reliable sources. The Guy With the Glasses is not considered reliable, the 1UP.com source is a blogentry from a user, and Kosmik and ScrewAttack are not considered reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That Guy with the Glasses is a famous reviewer and his show has its own IMDb entry, something most Internet shows don't. Even though I agree a mention by him isn't enough by itself it should still count for something. His review was quite detailed. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

A famous person is not a reliable person. TGWTG should never be used under any circumstance as a reliable source, ever. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least his opinion about the game could be used in the article. Reception is usually a part of a movie/book/game article. The fact that a famous reviewer has written about the game adds to its notability. Jiiimbooh (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being famous does not make a source reliable. If a source is not reliable, it cannot be used. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how he isn't reliable when it comes to his own opinions. Jiiimbooh (talk) 07:19, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are arguing that since he's only giving opinions he is reliable, wouldn't that mean that any single person can qualify? That is not how reliable sources work. TGWTG is generally a humorous reviewer - as such, his opinions are muddled and cannot be used consistently. Can you verify that TGWTG has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking"? Simply being famous does not entail that your opinions are able to be used in any way anywhere on Wikipedia. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 07:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If we are arguing that since he's only giving opinions he is reliable, wouldn't that mean that any single person can qualify?

True, but not every single person's opinions are interesting for Wikipedia's readers. I would argue that That Guy with the Glasses' opinion on the game is far more interesting than for example my opinion, since I'm not a well-known reviewer. I don't think that he's humorous should disqualify him outright. Jiiimbooh (talk) 07:45, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Being of interest to readers does not mean that the editor is considered reliable. Again, unless you can demonstrate that he has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking", this argument is moot. TGWTG cannot be considered a reliable source. It can be considered a funny source, an interesting source, and a famous source. But not reliable. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• It is remarkable how complicated people make AfD sometimes. Sporadic discussion of something over the Internet is not enough for it to have an article here: that applies to hacked game cartridges as much as anything else. MAME supports 10,000 different ROM sets, many of which are bootlegs or hacks of some other description: how many of them do you think are notable? As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is irrelevant if the tree which falls in the forest makes a sound if it is not covered by reliable sources. If we have exactly one of those which gives non-trivial coverage to this particular game then it just about warrants a mention on one or two of our existing articles overlapping the topic (piracy, gaming in the Far East, ROM hacks: take your pick), but certainly not its own article. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 18:55, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Several good sources. EDIT: Non-trivial mentions: Gamespy, gamesradar, Atari hq. Brief mentions: Wired, mtv news, Siliconera The game has also reviewed by That Guy with the Glasses. Jiiimbooh (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per NARH arguments. Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's just a huge shame that most admins will close this discussion as no consensus due to a combination of the very close "vote" count and not wanting to make a judgment call, rather than closing as delete simply because of all of one source that could be usable in this article. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we all agreed on Gamesradar and 3DJuegos as significant coverage in reliable sources. I also found some evidence indicating that the Somari article in Gamespy was written by the staff, so now we're up to three. That's not counting the brief mentions in MTVNews and Siliconera. I also think mentioning That Guy with the Glasses under "Reception" would be ok but I know you disagree with that. There might also be reliable offline sources, such as magazines, especially since this game was made in the 90s. That any reliable online sources mentions the game at all points to it having an enduring legacy in gaming circles. Jiiimbooh (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Do I need to again repeat to you that the 3DJuegos source was a forum post? The fact that so few reliable sources acknowledge that this game exists does not inspire confidence that print sources, which are far more discerning with what content they include on their pages, pays any mind to this either. Even if the GameSpy source is considered reliable, that is two reliable sources that cover it in a non-trivial basis that the article is based on. If this is a new threshold for fan-made games, then I think that the Wikipedia is in trouble. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Now I found this source Atari hq (article linked from Wired). Atari hq staff. I think this source should count as reliable, so now we're up to three reliable sources again, plus a brief mention in Wired. Atari hq was previously in the article but I didn't take a look at the staff before. Jiiimbooh (talk) 09:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • The source tells us nothing of who wrote it. Who is Jinnai Zenjirou, for example? If it was, for example, the author of the article, it would make the article questionable. Simply being a reliable source (or in this case I'd say situational source) doesn't really cut it. We would occasionally overlook such an action in a web site with a more well-known track record (such as IGN, which has a lot of older articles without specific writing credits). However, this web site is not known for editorial oversight or the staffing of reliable people. As a reliable source, we would only be able to use content created by definitively reliable people. For example, while a web site may staff a bunch of unreliable upstarts, the editor in chief could be a very well-known and respected member of the industry. As such, any article written by that person would be considered reliable without the general web site being considered reliable. You have to ask yourself this: Do you think that each and every source that would be utilized in the Somari article would pass GA standards? Do you believe that this one, with its decidedly high level of informality and lack of attribution would be considered verifiable? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:48, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're trying to undermine the verifiability of a respected source. Do you have any evidence this source isn't to be trusted? Your comment hasn't provided any. You have suspicions, wp doesnt operate on suspicions. I'll take the source at face value unless you demonstrate otherwise. Szzuk (talk) 19:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

]

• Delete, impossible to source reliably. Andrevan@ 11:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redundant delete votes above. User Jiiimbooh has located two articles at IGN and Wired that demonstrate notability amply. There may be others, I didn't read much of the conversation and don't need to, I know verifiable sources when I see them. Szzuk (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why am I only hearing about these IGN sources now? I just searched the entire IGN web site and there are seven mentions - five from user posts and two from user FAQs. And the Wired link is evidence that Somari exists. Kohler does not, at any point, make anything even remotely resembling commentary on Somari's existence. A lot of people seem to think that Wikipedia's policy on sourcing is based around numbers. As in, if one finds five sources, one wins! Well, it does not work that way. The GamesRadar link and to a lesser extent the GameSpy link are usable. The MTV one is also usable, but covers Somari in very little detail and enhances the article in a very small way, and the Siliconera link is a situational source and one that only gives brief trivial commentary on the appearance of the cover art. And the Atari HQ link, as mentioned above, has no way of determining its author, any fact checking whatsoever, and any editorial policy whatsoever (WP:VG/RS does not even acknowledge any usability of the web site in the first place, so I have no idea where anyone is getting that the site is necessarily usable). Maybe you should read a discussion before you comment on it. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:13, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you should step back from the conversation and take another look, you're too involved to be objective. Szzuk (talk) 20:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Can you please refute my arguments instead of dancing around them? Again, you clearly have no grasp of this discussion if you are arguing that anyone posted IGN links as reliable sources here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You've made so many comments in this afd I don't think you would consider other possibilities. So i'll just wish you a good day! Szzuk (talk) 20:40, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Clearly, you have no intent on contributing to this conversation in a way that would enhance it in any way, shape or form. You should not have participated in an AfD discussion if you have no intent of defending your arguments. If you have no intent of defending them, then I contend that your arguments hold no weight, especially since I successfully refuted them in the first place. It's a shame that someone with your experience on the Wiki would act in such a disruptive manner. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • Yes I am an experienced editor. That is why I'm pointing out to the closing admin you've made so many comments you have biased the debate. I really have nothing else to say now. Szzuk (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • Great to know that an experienced editor is putting that experience to work by distracting editors from the actual discussion at hand. The fact that every response you've made to anything I've said has been "lolol bias" tells me that your attitude cannot possibly be overwhelmed by your contributions to Wikipedia. Please affirm to me that the next AfD you participate in will not be a repeat of your embarrassing edits in this one. We do not need people acting in such a disruptive manner without contributing in any way to the discussion. I hope that the closing admin makes note of this user's actions - and notice that after I demonstrated why the source of Atari HQ was iffy as he requested, he refused to discuss it in any way and rather made attacks instead. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But I'll be swell and give you another opportunity to refute my claims. I claimed that because Atari HQ's article does not attribute the author or demonstrate any fact checking or editorial oversight for any articles, it is far too iffy to be used as a source. As such, I've succeeded in demonstrating why it should not be use. Do you have anything to rebut what I say? Or are you going to accuse me of bias (even though my edit history not only demonstrates no bias against such games, but bias FOR these games, with the creation of Pixel Force: Left 4 Dead)? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Links above establish a level of notoriety, this seems marginally notable - although it might be worth merging to a list of Rom hacks article. I think there's some confusion as to how reliable sources relate to notability. You do not need a source to demonstrate that he has a "reputation for accuracy and fact checking" to show notability of a subject. Glenn Beck has no such reputation - but had he dedicated a a column of his website to Somari, it'd be notable. -
  n 23:28, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Your argument for keeping seeks to argue that WP:V is invalid in this situation, and you seem to be making an argument that the WP:V policy should not be usable in any situation. Why should we not apply one of the five pillars of Wikipedia to this article? What exception allows us to
    ignore all rules? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:37, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Comment - I've run across a few more non-trivial sources. First of all, a popular Russian gaming magazine, Great Dragon (Великий Dракон), ran an in-depth review of the game (Magazine No.20, ISSN:0868-5967) in the early 1990s (Oct. 10, 1995) under its "Dendy Game Room" subsection. Secondly, the game was reviewed in Season 1, Episode 11 of the Russian TV show, "Dendy: The New Reality" (Dendy Novaya Realnost). Details including the video clip can be found here. Remember also that a topic's notability requires only that RSes exist, not that they are immediately cited. Just because details of the article aren't covered by third-party sources doesn't mean SPSes such as the instruction manuals, etc. that came with the Somari cart can't be used to source the details of the article. As Hahnchen point out, Notability guidelines provide a threshold for inclusion. They don't strictly limit content within the article to reliable third party sources. -Thibbs (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's a link to the first page of the Great Dragon article. I'd be happy to supply the full article to User:Radix Z or anyone else who wished to expand the article. -Thibbs (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks good to me, the administrator can close as keep. Just make sure to source it in a timely manner. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:15, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep not my usual subject, but judging on the principles that would apply to any article, Thibbs has shown sufficient references for WP:N. Whether the conventional standards of WP:N are relevant for this subject field may well be another question, but in any case, for any intellectual or artistic product, reviews establish notability . DGG ( talk ) 23:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I feel that his has shown notability, the notion that there is any question that WP:N is relevant to this subject is silly. If WP:N doesn't apply, how do we know what is warranting inclusion on Wikipedia? Or do we just include all games of its kind? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:56, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • • My take on what DGG is saying that you have to sometimes look at the spirit of WP:N and WP:V, and balance that with the reality that the NYTimes may not cover these topics. We are having the same issue at
        ignore all rules because the inclusion of the article clearly is better for Wikipedia than deletion. This is certainly within the spirit of the guidelines, and exactly why IAR exists. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:17, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I'd have to strongly disagree with that. To IAR on notability should be reserved only for types of articles that are obviously notable. Fan remakes and ROM hacks are not only not presumed to be notable, but they are even presumed to be not notable because most aren't. If it was lacking the sources that establish the notability, pulling an IAR would just set precedent to have every single person who's ever made a fan game go on Wikipedia and spam them and say "well it's obviously notable". The only reason that this article DOES pass is because it's covered in enough reliable sources to do so. To say that it doesn't even need to pass is setting a bad precedent that doesn't need to be set. In this case, it either has sources and is kept or it doesn't and is deleted. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per DGG. At the very least, the discussion has become so muddled, I can't find a blinding argument or consensus to delete.--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 10:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, why are these AfDs still open for so long? Its the 5th nom, its not a delete once again, life goes on, but this litter of super-long AfDs is horrible!--Milowent • ^talkblp-r 04:01, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because if you end it as 'no consensus' or 'keep' before everyone that cares has the opportunity to chime in, someone will just renominate it again in a day or two. Better to let these contentious AFDs play out over a longer period of time, to build a stronger consensus, one way or another. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:19, 21 April 2011 (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.