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) 01:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Gallegos

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

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

University student who has been appointed as a "student regent" (a non-voting member of the board of regents) for the university which he attends. Notable to University of North Texas students, perhaps, but not to the community at large. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• At a time when Texas is facing tremendous cuts in their Higher Education formula funding, it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards. These boards are the gateway to hundreds of millions in state tax-payer dollars and transparency must be upheld. Wikipedia is a fantastic outlet for this type of transparency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Untregents (talk • contribs) 19:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Actually, no. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia,
  notable as evidenced by significant and widespread coverage in independent sources, not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas) about the board of Regents. And, it should be noted, that as a Student Member, Gallegos does not serve the interests of the citizens of Texas. Gallegos is a non-voting member. As such, it would appear that his function is to represent a voice of the students in the board's decisions, and to represent those decisions back to the student body. As noted above, this may be an important function to the students of UNT and the citizens of Texas, but not to the readers of Wikipedia as a whole. There are other venues through which this information can be rightfully disseminated, including the university's website, the UNT Board of Regents' website, etc. But not Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiDan61 (talk • contribs
  )
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No notability, no references. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:50, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete "it is imperative that students, and citizens of the state of Texas have a more clear and present picture of the members appointed to serve their interests on respective university system boards." OK - go to LinkedIn or AboutUs (or as most people do, both...). As has been pointed out above, Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and not a means of spreading information about some minor functionary or appointee. And such persons, and even State Governors, do not dictate the contents of Wikipedia. Peridon (talk) 21:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:03, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• What?! I agree that this may not be the best place to disseminate state information, but basing revocation soley on the idea that this article is "not to inform a select group of people (the citizens Texas)" about a certain topic is insane. We have tons of articles on Wikipedia that only serve a small segment of the populous. I did a quick search of other regent systems and most of them have a profile. I agree with the above comment. If appointed officials are responsible for taxpayers' dollars, taxpayers should have the opportunity to have that information provided to them. What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas. Why would they have a non-voting member on a board if they didn't matter? These assumptions of revocation are all based on the assumption that this person is ineffective in his capacity. I respectfully disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.120.24.35 (talk • contribs)
  • This argument has no basis in any Wikipedia policies and guidelines. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, does not meet
  WP:GNG. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete subject is not notable. Fails
  WP:BIO. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If taxpayers' dollars paid for Wikipedia, or or it were an exclusively American institution, you might have a point. "What a great opportunity for Wikipedia to serve the citizens of Texas." No, this is an encyclopaedia, not a directory of minor functionaries and/or appointees. I suggest you check the profiles of those others see what other notability they have. If they have no more than this subject has, feel free to tag them, or bring them to our attention and we'll do it. As it is, if you are looking for free webspace to let people know who you are (as appears to be the case), follow my suggestion and try those two sites mentioned (or many others that are similar). Peridon (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No neutral sources. Yours,
  talk) 16:36, 4 March 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 close as bold redirect. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stick It (album)

Stick It (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

Article already exists at Great White (album); does not present any additional information. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:15, 3 March 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. This one's a "hat trick". Per consensus, per CSD A7, and per CSD G12 as the first paragraph is a close paraphrase of http://www.nanobiotix.com/about-us/. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nanobiotix

Nanobiotix (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 company. Phearson (talk) 15:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - unsourced; 31 employees worldwide; the "leading European venture capital firms" that allegedly funded it are all so notable as not to have Wikipedia articles. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given above. Jared Preston (talk) 21:03, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per A7, No indication of importance - organisation. It falls into this CSD category as opposed to having to go through AfD because, I quote A7, it makes no credible claim of significance or importance in the article, apart from the fact that it is not sourced anyway. Jay _{Σεβαστός}^discuss 14:02, 4 March 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. Tone 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of knife discussion forums

List of knife discussion forums (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

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

I don't see how this list meets the notability guidelines for Lists. PROD, and Notability tags were removed. Yazan (talk) 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Yazan (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is a new list, it has some sources. Editor only created it a few days ago.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• List was created on Feb 26. 5 days ago. Yazan (talk) 16:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, ok, whateverThanks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:NOTDIR. postdlf (talk) 17:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Question I don't keep up much on lists of things on Wikipedia, I know they exist, but that's about it. Would it make sense to keep it then, if the forums in question had their own wikipedia entries? If that's the case then I can understand deleting it. --Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• You can read here about stand-alone lists notability requirements:
  WP:LISTN. Yazan (talk) 17:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

OK, thanks, that's what I was looking for. Did you ever make the editor who created the list aware of that?--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Editor was notified here. Yazan (talk) 17:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - information has been assimilated into another article.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 16:18, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. None of the list items are notable. (The two bluelinks are blue because they're knife companies, not because their forums are notable.) Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:42, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Your statement confirms to me that you know absolutely nothing about the notability of these knife discussion forums. However, I will give you a chance, so why do you feel bladeforums.com is not notable? Zabanio (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Create an article and source it. The burden is on you. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are 7 print sources in the article. Three from knife-related magazines, two from knife-related books, two from books about cooking. There are others out there as well, I'm not a fan of lists on wikipedia, but could an article be written entitled "Knife-related Forums" or something similar, mentioning the forums in question and their impact on knife collecting as a hobby and even how certain forums have changed the "rules of the game" of knife collecting. For instance, some knife makers have become quite popular on forums, gaining an exposure they never would have had if they relied on the old methods of travelling to knife shows or selling at local gun shows and craft fairs? I know of several makers who were doing this the old way and when they were able to reach a wider audience via the forums, they not only received more orders, but became more like factories...hiring workers and refining production methods to meet the demand. More importantly there have been a multitude of articles the past few years pointing out this trend. There have even been articles in specialty publications telling makers and collectors how to take advantage of these forums, etc.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:39, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If the sources provide all that context and substance for the topic, then yes, it is theoretically possible to write an article on the topic. So good luck. But while some forums may merit a mention in that hypothetical article, if sourced and relevant to a point (e.g., the first such forum, the most populous, etc.), that still wouldn't in and of itself justify a list such as this, no more than blog being notable as a concept merits a list of all blogs. postdlf (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, I'm speaking about a comprehensive article just about these types of forums in general. RecDotKnives being the oldest, bladeforums being the largest with over 100K members, UsualSuspectsNetwork the largest with regard to Custom Knives and promoter of their own Knife Show, etc. I have seen articles about individual forums (bladeforumsDOTcom for example) created and deleted in the past. To say these forums are not notable when they have been written about in books and periodicals is incorrect and I don't feel each Forum rates its own article. However, a comprehensive article about the forums in general and their impact in the worlds of knife collecting and knife making sounds like a good article to me. Then again what do I know? I have never edited a Family Guy article the entire time I've been on Wiki.:)--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 23:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The "notability" issue can be determined on a forum by forum basis by simply visually inspecting the aggregate number of posts at the forums. Zabanio (talk) 22:13, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of forum posts is not a recognized standard on Wikipedia for the
    WP:WEB for website-specific inclusion standards. postdlf (talk) 22:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment: there is absolutely no mention of Internet forums on the
    WP:WEB. If someone were to add a section about Internet forums no doubt "post count" and "number of members" would factor into notability, it is only common sense. Zabanio (talk) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Delete - per WP:NOTDIR Yaksar (let's chat) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  comment 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I notified members of the Wikipedia Cutlery Project of this discussion, to weigh in and offer their opinion as the list was created by a member of the Project for the project.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We don't seem to have any coverage of knife collecting or knife (hobby) though these support a notable industry of knife makers and dealers. There are print magazines and books, let alone online forums, and so we might best develop this into a more general article. As for specific sources, one can immediately find items like The development of controversies or Boats, Bikes, and Boxing Gloves so more time should be allowed for research and development of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one is asserting that knife collecting or the knife industry in general is not notable. No one is asserting that there aren't numerous magazines and books related to knives and knife collecting. No one is asserting that online forums for knife collecting don't actually exist, but we are asserting that they are not notable. That is why there are no blue links in this article (except for the two which lead to articles on knife manufacturers, not knife discussion forums). This is a directory of purely non-notable items, which should be deleted per

confabulate 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment It seems to me that this list would be more appropriate once articles on the various knife discussion forums existed, and even then, a category for such forums would initially serve the same function as a list. I suppose that this comment means I am a reluctant delete, but I prefer to leave it to others to decide. --DThomsen8 (talk) 12:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to an article on Knife collecting and merely add this as a section at the bototm of notable websites related to the hobby. It certainly aint encyclopedic in its own right. Now a thorough article on knife collecting in general would suffice.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article has been created and the section has been added. It's a pretty good article, if I may add.--Yaksar (let's chat) 19:42, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  WP:ELNO.--137.122.49.102 (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: this is publicly accessible anony IP number. Zabanio (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all lists of fora. A discussion forum is not notable with very few exceptions. MLA (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No need for a list of forums.Halofanatic333 (talk) 12:45, 8 March 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.  Sandstein  08:14, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Multiracial American

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

)

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

There is no external documentation suggesting "multiracial American" is anything more than a terminology, which can be and is aptly covered in

• Possible Keep I don't like the title very much either, but the general topic of mixed-race people in the United States is certainly an important one and probably WP "notable" too. Kitfoxxe (talk) 15:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree, but why can't it be covered in
  WP:OR. Bulldog123 15:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep, though recognizing its current flaws. To frame the discussion, complaints about the term "Multiracial American" seem to me overly caught up on form over substance; maybe the article should be titled
  Racial and ethnic demographics of the United States; the topic is larger than what that can incorporate given its scope.

  I agree that the quotes need to be trimmed and/or summarized, but I'm not sure what the nom claims is OR in this article, and I'm not sure whether there is anything else here other than cleanup/article talk page issues which are not AFD problems.

  That it intersects with a number of other articles is not a reason for it not existing, particularly since none of those could cover this topic in full: interracial marriage in the U.S. is obviously related to multiracial people in the U.S., but a full discussion of the legal, cultural, and historical experience of the people who are the offspring and descendants of such unions (not all of which were marriages, obviously) is outside the scope of that article, just as the topic of multiracialism in the U.S. is broader than any one article on a particular race/ethnicity in the United States. postdlf (talk) 17:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep meets every requirement in
  WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - this is potentially a significant article, so it should be forked out. Many articles intersect with one another, often complimenting each other. I have the feeling that
  a content fork with a radically different point of view. I don't see how this can't be fixed in the ordinary editing process and kept fixed with a few dozen eyes on their watchlists. A move per Postdlf is in order. Bearian (talk) 18:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete - When I first saw this, my reaction was delete since the topic seemed somewhat
  Chinese Americans, Hispanic and Latino Americans, etc, etc..... Excluding a "multiracial" category could easily be perceived as bias.... NickCT (talk) 19:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The number of notable multiracial Americans is beside the point, as this isn't a list. The article's topic is the concept, the identity itself. "Have a considerable number of books been written that focus solely on the subject of multiracial people in America"? Yes. Many books appear in the search here for "mixed race" + "United States", for example. multiracial+"United States" also produces a number of relevant hits (though more false hits, as "multiracial" is also used to mean a racially diverse group rather than an individual of racially diverse background). A lot (if not most) of the positive hits are from university presses; I'm sure if we dug into scholarly journals we'd find a lot more, as this has been a vital topic in American academics for decades. The issue has always been a relevant one because there have always been consequences for belonging to one race or another: legal at first, but even today, social and cultural, and recent history has seen the analysis and study of multiracial as itself a distinct identity. Multiracialism in the United States is a highly notable topic in American history, and a highly notable topic in contemporary sociology, race studies, media analysis, etc. postdlf (talk) 19:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't understand. How does
  multiracial#United States not cover all that? Are you going to argue that we need Eurasian American too because there are so many books on the subjects of individuals growing up with an Asian father/mother and White mother/father? Seems a bit... silly and overextensive. There are far less books on the subject than you're suggesting. I can only find two and both are about individuals in your google books link, and I can't find a single source that refers to "Multiracial" as an American ethnic group. If you are proposing a keep so vehemently, can you at least work on the talk page to get stuff like the infobox and mentions of "multiracial" as a uniform group of individuals removed? Bulldog123 20:30, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I took a look at that talk page discussion and it didn't really develop very far, so I'm not seeing much to respond to. I agree that multiracial is not a singular "ethnic group", obviously, at least as I would use that term, but I don't know what consequence you think that should have for the article content nor do I understand the way in which those ostensibly disagreeing with you there believed that it was an ethnic group. I might say it's a "racial classification," but beyond semantics, what's the difference? Whether it is or isn't an "ethnic group" certainly has no impact on whether the article should be deleted. The only real point I can make right now is that the topic of multiracial people in the U.S. is broader than just the census classification, so the article should not be arranged such that it appears the census classification defines it or provides a "complete count".

  One broader point: this kind of article is one of the most difficult for Wikipedia to handle, for a number of reasons: 1) race is an emotionally volatile issue; 2) most Wikipedians' interests and backgrounds lean away from the humanities/social sciences; 3) racial studies have gone through a lot of change in the past few decades that it's still contentious even for university curricula, let alone volunteer editors, to determine what's essential to the subject or what defines it. There's a germ of a decent outline in the article, so there's hope. And that the article admittedly has a long way to go is by no means grounds for deletion when there's a valid, notable topic and, at minimum, a not-awful start. postdlf (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I meant: will you work toward fixing the article on the talk page if this article is kept? A lot of times people just come to AfD, vote !keep, and the article continues to languish in its miserable state (e.g.
  WP:BEFORE and got almost no responses, besides a few requests that AfD is a better venue for this than the talk page... so... clearly something is not working here... The consequences are big regarding this article's "ethnic group" status. An ethnic group is defined as: a group of people whose members identify with each other, through a common heritage, often consisting of a common language, a common culture (often including a shared religion) and an ideology that stresses common ancestry or endogamy. This article is currently in the Template for ethnic groups, in a category for ethnic groups (Category:Ethnic groups in the United States, and maintains an ethnic group infobox (including the idiotic montage). All these things make it seem like "multiracial american" is some type of uniform group of people. If your rename idea goes through, it would definitely help improve that. However, I'd prefer if the rename did not concern "people" but the "concept". Turns out that Multiracialism is actually a word. One of its meanings is: composed of or involving multiple races [10]. So even something like Multiracialism in the United States would be better. Still, I can't see what there is to salvage from this article. It's a huge quote farm. Bulldog123 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've watchlisted it, and if I feel I have something to contribute to a discussion at that talk page, I will. You can feel free to ping me if you would like my input on a thread there. postdlf (talk)

• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 21:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep for the more than adequate reasons offered by postdlf. This subject is part of any discussion of the evolving American society. It can be improved, as can most articles in WP, but articles just needing improvement do not get deleted. There is some other agenda going on here. Hmains (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please, do inform everyone of what you think that "other agenda" is. Bulldog123 05:15, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article is a hodgepodge about a purported ethnic group called "multiracial Americans". There is, in fact, no such ethnic group, which makes the very foundation of the article
  original research. As Bulldog suggested, Wikipedia could use an article about multiracialism in the United States, but this isn't likely to become it. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep article subject, individuals who are of multiple races and american pass
  consensus of the active editors will determine what is within the article, as well as said content following the general policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but the primary question of an AfD is whether the subject of an article is Notable. This subject is. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 12:56, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'd disagree with you on the last point per
  Wikipedia:ITSNOTABLE. But, in any case, the subject of being multiracial in America is notable. However, I don't believe that the subject of Multiracial Americans (as uniform group of people) is. If you have multiple reliable sources in major newspapers and multiple accredited education institutions showing otherwise, it would be helpful to list them here. Bulldog123 03:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep A source such as Multiracial Americans and social class] demonstrates the notability of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:44, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This article is clearly an encyclopedic topic. Moreover, Stats.Grok shows it consistently receives over 500 views per day. We have articles on individual episodes of The Simpsons, such as “Mayored to the Mob”, which, though it is also encyclopedic, is of interest to far fewer readers. We don’t build the project by deleting a whole class of articles that makes some editors uncomfortable (the nom has a track record of objecting to these articles). Nor do we delete articles that have have shortcomings; we improve them. Greg L (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I'm in accord with the over 80% of those who have commented so far that this is a keep. Meets GNG, highly notable, encyclopedic. RightCow put it quite well. Some of the arguments in favor of deletion are reminiscent of the arguments that were debunked and rejected in the following quite recent nominations by the same nom as here (Bulldog), which all ended up keeps as well:

• AfD for List of Black Golden Globe Award winners and nominees,
• CfD for African American artists,
• CfD for American artists by ethnic or national origin,
• CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin, and
• CfD for American film directors by ethnic or national origin.

Not even a close call, IMHO.--Epeefleche (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (possibly rename). I supported a merge on
  multiracial and miscegenation are international, this one is specifically about the US). 'Multiracial American' may or may not constitute a coherent ethnic group, but there's clearly a notable topic here. If the name is problematic, I'd be open to renaming it to something like Mixed-race people in the United States or something similar, but I'm not convinced that's really necessary. Robofish (talk) 22:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The article is mostly just a
  Multiracial#United States and possibly Multiracialism in the United States. This article isn't that though. Bulldog123 03:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes; we gathered you’re not an admirer of the article given that you are the nom and creator of this AfD.

  The article is clearly not “mostly” a “quote farm”; at least not the version as I write this post. It has proper and sufficient quotes to adequately buttress a topic that is intrinsically more controversial than most. It seems a wise move by whoever was the shepherding author, who may have perceived the need to preemptively fend off allegations of wp:synth and wp:POV (criticisms you’ve been throwing about lately on the whole, broad subject of ethnic and racial classifications).

  Your arguments still don’t dissuade me from looking at this AfD any differently: it’s better to put the underweight premies in the incubator in the nursery rather than euthanize them in the maternity ward; that’s how volunteers build the project.

  And, thank you for your link to Wikipedia:Quotations, which you curiously aliased as “quote farm”. Once again, I actually read your I made it BLUE so it must be TRUE-link. It doesn’t seem to support whatever impeaching point you were alleging (other than point out how the article is handling quotations properly). Please try to avoid WP:Feigning knowledge with inapplicable links. I find that to be the Wikipedia-equivalent of what engineers sometimes do in design-review meetings, where 68.656% of statistics cited by engineers are contemporaneously fabricated to feign expertise. Greg L (talk) 01:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• troll somewhere else. Bulldog123 15:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• You aliased your link to the entire guideline:
  personal attack by accusing an editor offering their opinion and analysis here (me) of trolling. Trolling is “disrupt[ing] the usability of Wikipedia for its editors.”. This isn’t the proper venue to elaborate in any detail, but you’ve been warned about this sort of thing before and this latest accusation is without foundation. When other editors point out something on a matter of Wikipedia business pertaining to content on the project and you disagree someone’s opinion, such as how your cited objection over “quote farm” takes the reader to the entire guideline, and that they read the guideline, and they opine that they don’t see a problem, it is not appropriate conduct on Wikipedia to falsely accuse them of disruption. M‘kay?

  From hereon on this page—and everywhere else on Wikipedia where you might land—please try to keep your comments focused on the subject at hand and do not personally attack those who disagree with you. Nor should you taunt and bait them. All that sort of behavior is prohibited and is incompatible with a collaborative writing environment. Greg L (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Once again, save this material for your blog and go troll somewhere else. Bulldog123 20:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The article is of importance because it deals with the issue that effects people who have a bi/multiracial background. It hits on kkey issues that effects how Americans self-identify or feel pressured to self-identify with certain ethnic groups. The article is encyclopedic and goes over how American society has evolved and how the dark history of the United States has influenced how people self-identify in the past and how it is changing at a rapid rate. Remove the article would harm wikipedia's diversity and seems biased.Mcelite (talk) 05:52, 11 March 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. -- Cirt (talk) 05:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Chiefs

Southern Chiefs (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 was supposed to have been bundled with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denver Wolverines, but I neglected to do it. The rationale is the same: this is another proposed semi-pro rugby league team for which there isn't any substantial coverage in reliable, third-party sources establishing notability. The only source that explicitly describes them is a blog entry that specifically says they have no firm plans to play any games or join a notable league. Cúchullain ^t/c 21:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nominator.--Cúchullain ^t/c 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a putative team that has never played a match might just about manage notability in a major sport, but given that rugby league is an incredibly minor sport in the USA, that definitely isn't the case here -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:08, 23 February 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, Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Guess I forgot to list this before; doing it now.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - A team that has yet to play any games, and has no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:36, 4 March 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 deleted as

Thomas Vose

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

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

Contested prod (by creator). Prod reason was: Hoax article. All the refs and external links lead to articles on Ryan Bowman and the article seems to have been copied from Bowman's with a few changes. As far as I can tell, Carlisle United has never had a "Thomas Vose" play for them. Would CSD, but it's technically not "blatant". Also findmypast.com revealed that there is person called Thomas Joseph Vose, but they were born in 1996. Jenks24 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. —Jenks24 (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As the nominator pointed out, all the content of the article has been copied from Ryan Bowman. It's pretty clear that this article is a hoax. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 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. Tone 21:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Brian David Ellis

Brian David Ellis (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 identity, doesn't meet

He is in fact a rather well-known figure in philosophy of nature circles. Granted, the entry needs expansion and he's not some sort of rock star, but it is clear that Dr. Ellis is notable enough to deserve an entry. JKeck (talk) 16:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:51, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. GS gives cites of 248, 97, 2, 1. Unusual but enough for a philosopher to pass
  WP:Prof#C1. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2011 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep. Ellis's writings are the standard references for the essentialist position in metaphysics. Agree with JKeck that the entry needs expansion. Elaborating (talk) 06:40, 5 March 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. There is no consensus to delete or merge this article, and I see no compelling policy argument that would require doing so in the absence of consensus. Any undue weight and BLP issues can be addressed by editing the article.  Sandstein  08:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange

Swedish Judicial Authority v. Julian Assange (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Undue amount of scrutiny for a currently non-notable event. Recommend deletion and move to Wikipedia:Article Incubator instead for now in case it eventually is notable. Avanu (talk) 12:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:49, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to be more clear on what I mean by 'notable'. Yes, it has recieved a LOT of coverage in the media, but ultimately what is it we are covering in this article? A man was accused of sexual indiscretion.

How notable is that really? Is he the first well-known person to be accused of something like that?

Is there something particularly notable about how the case has proceeded thus far? Assange claimed the US was out to get him, yet there has been no evidence of that in this article.

Ultimately what we have here is a rather commonplace event (so far), and really most other people in Wikipedia don't get this much attention. This is why it is currently not truly notable, and rather than delete it all entirely, that is why I recommend above that it be put in the Wikipedia:Article Incubator. -- Avanu (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Sources currently in article indicate that it meets the
  event notability guidelines.  -- Lear's Fool 12:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. In Wikipedia, notability depends on third-party coverage, not on a philosophical concept of notability or on an ethical view of what ought to be notable. Third party coverage by reliable sources is considerable, and referenced in the article.
  WP:BLP aspects are relevant but unless so much material needed to be removed on BLP grounds that the remaining article lacked notability, the article should not be deleted. I see no requirement for mass removal of information. Thincat (talk) 13:18, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What I am asking above is 'How does this truly have significance?' I understand that a lot of people assume that notability is somehow automatic after there is a bit of news coverage in big media outlets, but really that ISN'T the standard. -- Avanu (talk) 13:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the fact that this "event" (a strange word to use for ongoing proceedings; it's a legal process unfolding, not a car crash) centers on a notable person who is receiving significant international attention right now because of his connection to

O.J. Simpson. If Assange were not notable, then it's not likely his extradition would get much attention at all, from the news or Wikipedia. postdlf (talk) 13:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

That's really my point, Postdlf. Yes, this is a legal process, but really there's little actual substance here. So instead, we have this excruciating play-by-play of legal minutiae and press coverage that really doesn't have a point. The posts below who say offhandedly "This meets WP:GNG" ... I'm not sure they are seeing the point I'm asking about. I'm asking where the substance is. What makes this really worth having in Wikipedia. Sure it has gotten press, but what is the real story here, and can we focus on that instead of the pointless... and if we can't or there really isn't a story, then lets just prune the thing out. -- Avanu (talk) 04:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the problem with articles of this type is that they overemphasize what is, in the long run, only one segment of a broader notable story. The extradition proceedings were brought pursuant to a criminal investigation and allegations, and so are part of that larger story, and if he is brought to trial in Sweden then that will diminish the relative importance of the extradition phase even more. All of which is to say the article should probably be renamed, and that's more of a talk page discussion than an AFD, but I think that kind of context and framing issue can affect perceptions of notability and so merited a mention here. postdlf (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Completely agree with you, postdlf. -- Avanu (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Let me agree too despite my "keep". This would not be in my world encyclopedia until some broad conclusion was reached and then the matter would likely be a footnote. However, it seems to me that this article reaches enwiki standards of notability. Thincat (talk) 14:40, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, though I didn't frame it in terms of a !vote, I think my comment boils down to "keep at least for now, and then we'll reevaluate where it should go once this has developed some more." postdlf (talk) 22:33, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:55, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Has received significant international media coverage warranting an article on its own under notability guidelines. StuartH (talk) 00:10, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:34, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Its a major issue of international attention, and not merely because a notable person was involved Monty845 (talk) 08:29, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  When you say it is a "major issue", could you point out more specifically what part of it you mean? I'm looking for a description of what makes this "a major issue of international attention", in order to maybe clarify the article down the road, if it is kept. It seems as if many of the commenters feel it is sufficient to say nothing more than WP:GNG and pass on. But I would hope we all recognize the difference between something that is worth news attention and something that is encyclopedic. -- Avanu (talk) 15:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  What I mean is that he has alleged (and the allegation seems to have traction in the press) that the prosecution is politically motivated as a result of his position as the public face of wikileaks. Whether you believe the prosecution is in fact politically motivated or not, it has become part of the broader wikileaks story. If the allegation is true, then it would be a really big deal, either the US influencing Sweden, or Sweden doing it on its own. Of course like any good conspiracy theory, it would be very hard to prove or disprove, but the media is still giving it a lot of attention. Actually, it really seems more like a question of whether its appropriate material for inclusion in an encyclopedia, as to me the notability is clearly established. Let me draw an analogy to the Watergate break-in, alone it is just a burglary, hardly notable, but when placed in context, including the actors, victim, and reaction, the break-in becomes not just notable, but appropriate for inclusions in an encyclopedia. Monty845 (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  I *COMPLETELY* agree and this is really the point I have been hoping others would see. Please forgive me for using the word 'notability' in a somewhat layperson's sense, instead of the strict Wikipedia definition. To me, this event really lacks enough substance to be here right now. Without the political and unproven conspiracy (or whatever term might be best), this is just another criminal investigation. If it is really being done for political reasons, then the article needs to reflect that (or just not exist). -- Avanu (talk) 18:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Maybe the reason people are paying attention is because they are reading between the lines, and seeing it as politically motivated, which would weigh in favor of keeping it, but how do you include that in the article while remaining encyclopedic? While your argument makes a lot of sense, I just think that in light of the extreme notability of the event as indicated by press coverage, that we should err on the side of keeping the article, at least for now. Monty845 (talk) 18:50, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Although that makes sense for a tabloid or conspiracy website, we're supposed to follow a different standard. The idea of a political plot is something that is clearly biased for Mr. Assange and so I'm not sure if that would be viewed as a neutral viewpoint unless some facts came forward that lent credence to that. Having Mr. Assange or others simply assert it and we include it doesn't strike me as being the right approach. -- Avanu (talk) 19:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, The

Time magazine, The BBC and about 300 other news organizations have articles on the proceedings according to Google News. They are reliable sources, not tabloids. We don't have to have a reason why they are covering the legal proceedings, but when they do that defines notability in Wikipedia. Maybe you can show some respect and withdraw your nomination at this point, and Monty845, please don't feed the trolls, they just keep come back for more, your legal editing skills are in great need and the more you reason with Monty845 the less time is spent where you are needed. Cheers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't implying that the New York Times and others are tabloids. One thing these reliable sources have covered (almost to a fault in some cases) is the timeline and how suspicious some of it seems. Like Monty845 suggested, there is a lot of reading between the lines. I'm not averse to changing my opinion, but it is with the help of editors like Monty that *we* come to consensus. Naming people 'trolls' is not. If there have been any comments of mine that seemed uncivil in the least, I apologize; there was no intent to trivialize other editors, and I would hope you might show the same sense of decorum. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 20:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Why was this even put up for Afd?--BabbaQ (talk) 13:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into a page about Assange and then later split it out into the legal cases vs Assange as this extradition case is a very minor episode in the overall legal story. I hope we aren't considering extradition cases themselves to be notable as it is the actual criminal case that is where the real notability lies. MLA (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep He's being extradited to Sweden so this article refers to an actual case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wing gundam (talk • contribs) 01:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  Siegenthaler incident. - Hydroxonium (H₃O⁺) 06:04, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per nom, what
  WP:UNDUE weight. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep or merge with biography article. Meets
  WP:GNG criteria, certainly in Europe. Has contributed to make the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) more widely know to European media and public. FYI: EAW is quite recent, designed to facilitate inter-EU prosecution of criminal offenses, affects EU citizens and residents, has come into criticism because of extraditions for minor offenses, e.g. from UK to Poland. In 2004, the UK extradited 158 persons under EAW scheme, in 2008 already 615 person, now more than 1000. Assange recently tried to jump on criticism bandwagon. He is the first prominent figure to be hit by an EAW. KathaLu (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There is just insufficient factual reporting to justify this article - it can be adequately covered in the Assange article, if one excludes the spin and speculation from the various involved parties. Even if this article remains, the extradition proceedings will still need to be discussed in the Assange bio. If and when the case comes to court, it can be properly reported, but for now this all seems too much like tabloid journalism, and of little lasting significance. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:39, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - article expansion and forking off is creating a partisan editing environment with supporters of Assange attempting to protest his innocence and add all sorts of opinionated content as in the whole thing is some CIA feminist plot and undue coverage of issues as yet not even at trial.
  Off2riorob (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Julian Assange. Certainly a notable event, but can be covered within Mr. Assange's article. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a
  content fork, I initially felt that it would be possible to re-position the article to cover the extradition which is the only part that can be sensibly reported in detail at this stage. But this was heavily resisted; instead the article is bypassing established consensus at Julian Assange over certain aspects of this event. And now there is an effort to force in highly problematic material previously soundly rejected at the JA article. It is far too soon to be writing this article. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to Julian Assange. We don't normally have separate articles on every criminal conviction against a celebrity, and in this situation the subject has not yet been charged with a crime. Furthermore, this proceeding deserves to be placed in the context of Mr. Assange's other activities, which have greatly angered most of the world's governments. --agr (talk) 01:15, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case for analogy. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:25, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Victor, do you feel the substantive parts of this have reached the point to necessitate a fork? -- Avanu (talk) 21:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets more that
  Silvio Berlusconi underage prostitution charges and Roman Polanski sexual abuse case IQinn (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Hardly non-notable. See HM Advocate v Sheridan and Sheridan as another example where we had an article on a current court case without hitting serious problems, although there were concerns raised at the BLP noticeboard at one point. PatGallacher (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and do not merge (although a merging discussion would have to take place elsewhere anyway). I created the article so perhaps I can shed some light here. The coverage of this case in the media has been disproportionately large, and as a result the section on the allegations in the
  WP:BLP. If it were to be merged, it would have to be with some "Notable European Arrest Warrant Extradition Cases" article, but the fact of the matter is that there is an extensive amount of factual material that has been reported on this case and it would simply take up too much room as a subsection of any other article. Gregcaletta (talk) 06:11, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  To quote you, "the section on the allegations in the Julian Assange article was getting ridiculously large". I completely agree, and after reading this article again in its entirety, I still wonder why we *need* all of this. We don't even have a substantive reason for having it except that the media spent time covering it. The media has a different goal/motivation than an encyclopedia, but if that is what we want to strive for, so be it, I suppose. -- Avanu (talk) 06:29, 11 March 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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

UELSports

UELSports (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 is about a single department of a university. There is nothing to demonstrate that it has received sufficient independent coverage for inclusion per

• Delete - as above, plus the article content - including with regard to the Olympics - is almost entirely reproduced in the main article for the university. - Sitush (talk) 16:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Per
  significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources to suggest that this is an exception. JohnCD (talk) 14:47, 4 March 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. Tone 21:08, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kisorsa

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

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

There is no village called "Kisorsa" in Hungary. Anyone can check in the Detailed Gazetteer of the Republic of Hungary, 2010 − Hungarian Central Statistical Office: it does not know about it, which means it does not exist. The Gazetteer includes all localities (so an existing village with a village hall is certainly included), even all "parts of localities" (outskirts etc.). See also its talk page. (I already deleted a bulk of self-contradicting information from the article.) Antissimo (talk) 10:22, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Painstaking work has been done on this on the discussion page and the case for this being a hoax seems to have been established. There is nothing that emerges on a web search giving evidence of the existence of this place independent of this article, so it fails for sources in any case. And by the way, whilst llamas are kept in Europe there is no established market which would support large scale farming! AJHingston (talk) 12:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: The user is known for creating hoax articles, although, I should say, well-crafted ones. --Ezhuks (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete In addition to all the arguments made on the talk page, I'd also like to point out that earlier versions of the article provide coordinates for this "village" -- apparently placing it in the middle of a field in southern Slovakia, about 40 km north of the Hungarian border. By the way, this is not the first hoax article by the original author of the article --Malatinszky (talk) 13:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An obvious hoax. --Pagony (talk) 13:58, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A hoax with llamas and foosball. Csigabi (talk) 21:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to llama. Just kidding. Delete.--Oakshade (talk) 06:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax per above. In addition, the image appears to be a hoax and an altered version (and a copyvio) of one at this page; see Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 March 5#File:Kisorsavillage.jpg. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 10:52, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which, in fact, depicts the village hall of community Halogy in Hungary (see the coat of arms in Commons:File:HUN Halogy COA.jpg) Csigabi (talk) 12:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 13:55, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, no such village exists. – Alensha ^talk 17:28, 5 March 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. (non-admin closure) Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 03:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

McTimoney College of Chiropractic

McTimoney College of Chiropractic (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 a company that provides training for quacks. Four sources are cited. One is the company's own site, one is 404, one is no longer available (and was about the University of Wales validating bogus degrees, not about this company; McTimoney is not mentioned in the broadcast), one does not mention the name of this company.

It is fun to poke these fools with a stick - the Bad Science posse replaced McTimoney's picture with a rubber duck on one site, which was amusing while it lasted - but I do not really see much evidence that anybody outside of the McTimoney "association" thinks McTimoney is at all important. Guy (Help!) 09:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've corrected the 404 link and removed the iPlayer reference - hadn't realised it was unavailable and yes it'd be better as a reference for the University of Wales article.

I've not created the article to poke fun or mock anyone, can only apologies if that's the impression I've given. I'm completely aware of the rubber duck thing. I'm not sure how the importance of McTimoney outside of the field of Chiropractic is critical - if that's a consideration here then ought to be seriously reviewing pages listed at Category:Chiropractic_schools. I think it's worth of an article since:

• The MCA represents a measurable faction of Chiropractors in the UK, sizable enough to cause plenty of friction with other Chiropractors ^[1].
• It's one of the few places in the UK offering science degrees in a pseudoscience.

talk) 20:06, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —• Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A search for <McTimoney Chiropractic> yields about a hundred results at Google Books,[11], including examples like these: [12][13][14][15][16][17][18] and many more. Google Scholar also yields about 100 references.[19] Whatever one's views about chiropractic, the evidence is that this school and its associated methodology and association represent a notable branch of it.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And are they primarily about this company? I doubt it. That's not to dispute that McTimoney is a notable form of quackery (even other chiropractors have spoken out against it) but that doesn't mean that this company, as covered in this thinly sourced article, is notable by association. Guy (Help!) 16:39, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. McTimoney Chiropractic is regulated in the UK by the General Chiropractic Council set up by act of parliament to regulate training and professional standards. Most of the opinions stated above seem to be expressions of prejudice with no citations. Wikipedia exists to provide a repository of what is known about our world and McTimoney Chiropractic is part of that world. The article makes no claims for the efficacy of Chiropractic in general or McTimoney Chiropractic in particular, it simply reports what exists. Any attempt to deny its existence by seeking to delete this page is censorship. Chrisrustsheffield (talk) 20:49, 9 March 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 or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New York Cosmos (2010)

New York Cosmos (2010) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|View AfD]]  • AfD statistics)

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

This article fails both

• Keep I have no more issues with this article so long as a neutral point of reference is established. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I love this re-write of history that is going on. All the articles referenced on the New York Cosmos (2010) mention that the original club "folded" or "cease operations" in 1985. A club "folding" or "ceasing operations" does not exist. The Cosmos team in extistence today is not the same team that operated in 1985. It is a new club that purchased the name and logo of the old club.KitHutch (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI understand your position and respect it, but I think that it's important that you address how this article satisfies Wikipedia policy. It exists primarily to avoid such disagreements. You're merely stating an opinion. The idea that a "folded" or "ceased operations" club can be reformed under the same history already has precedent on this site long before the NY Cosmos came along, but that is not the topic of this discussion. Bottom line is everything on this site must be verified and it's important that you address whether or not this article satisfies

WP:V. I've tried to bring this up numerous times before in discussion. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 20:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Comment' - You haven't stated how the article fails Wikipedia policy. Even if this club is legally the same entity from the original club, if you have a reliable source for that, just add it to this article. And add a link and a small section to the article on the old Cosmos noting that as well. Rlendog (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It was tried before, but there were certain editors who were reverting any compromise changes from being made to the article. Perhaps I took a drastic route, but it seemed the only manner in which to relay my point to a broader pool of editors. I also posted the article for

RFC discussions. There were no outside responses. To clarify, although they haven't chosen to comment in this particular discussion, there were editors who agreed with my general argument, so I believe that a compromise was warranted. However short of the same notice I gave to everyone involved in the original discussion, I've made no other attempts to introduce them to this particular discussion in order to avoid biased canvassing. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. It is verifiable, per the New York Times article currently cited, that a group named the New York Cosmos began operations in 2010. Yes, there is an issue of whether this should be a stand-alone article or rolled into the (historical) Cosmos article. However, that's a discussion on how to properly present the material that makes up this article—and whether it stays standalone or gets merged, that's a keep outcome for deletion discussion purposes. —C.Fred (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There doesn't seem to be a definitive consensus on this. Some clubs have two seperate articles in these cases (
  common sense is needed here, since the only real resemblence between the original and the new Cosmos is the brand name. J Mo 101 (talk) 14:38, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bottom line the question that has to be answered here is do we want Wikipedia to be acurrate and consistent, or a hodgepodge of different sets of rules for different sets of information. In every other section of Wikipedia, science, health, or business articles, we have a standard and stick to it bc that's the best way in which to ensure accuracy. But here we feel it's ok to accept a change in how we view a certain standard and do not even choose to revisit the other articles which set that standard to ensure uniformity. If this is the case, if this is how we want to standardize how we view such articles, then for those same purposes we need to go back and change all of the articles that rest under, not just similar, but the exact same circumstances. That goes for ACF Fiorentina, the Portland Beavers baseball club, basically any other team that we have judged for years under a certain standard that we now seem to deem it ok to change out of the blue. Otherwise we need a specific reason why this is different. Yes there are no hard-bound rules to Wiki editing, but if we don't have reasonable standards then this site becomes an unreliable mish-mash of information. There needs to be a standard, period. And if we are going to decide that this is our standard then be ready to go and change the rest of the articles for the sake of uniformity and consistency. This is why I feel so strongly about this. Am I wrong to believe that these should be things that we take into consideration when we edit here on Wikipedia? unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 02:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep New York Cosmos is a page about a soccer/football team that ceased operating in 1985. It has been defunct for 25 years! New York Cosmos (2010) is about a bid to be the 20th expansion franchise in Major League Soccer and has many Wikipedia:Reliable sources to support its Wikipedia:Notability. The only thing these two organizations share is name.Cmjc80 (talk) 23:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is a phoenix club of an old one, Wikipedia often has pages of pheonix clubs so it's nothing new to have a separate page for the revival. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 12:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral I accept the technical argument, and therefore the case that has been made that on WP:V grounds that this might be a candidate for a merge. On the other hand, I believe the information is more usefully presented as two articles. Regardless of whether the holding company is the same or not, the first team was discontinued over a quarter of a century ago, as was the league they played in and all of their opponents, so there are grounds for considering 2010 as a new start. Precident exists for legal continuations on which there are otherwise grounds to split to be handled either way: New England Patriots serves as an article for the franchise both before and after the move from Boston, whereas the opposite is the case in a very similar situation with Wimbledon F.C. and Milton Keynes Dons F.C. To summarise, policy would seem to slightly favour a delete, but I think there is slightly more encyclopaedic value in two articles. —WFC— 14:13, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - as above, it's a seperate organisation (no need to merge) that meets
  WP:GNG (no need to delete). GiantSnowman 17:38, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep - The organization is verifiable. Even if this is really the same entity as the Cosmos team that folded 25 years ago (which I doubt, but will presume for argument's sake), it is hardly unprecedented for information about a team to be split into multiple articles when circumstances warrant (e.g.,
  History of the Brooklyn Dodgers, or Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals). And circumstances warrant here, since the league, players, personnel and everything else about the original team are long gone, and there is no continuity other than the name and (arguably) some legal technicalities. Rlendog (talk) 19:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

But this particular article originally added a founding date of this year while willfully ignoring the club's own valid claim on the rest of it's history. So again, while it may be hold encyclopaedic value to separate the information, to present the information in such a manner that contradicts the way that it's presented in publication is not. To present our own version of this club's establishment date in direct contradiction to their official founding date cannot possibly avoid

WP:NPOV? Are we arbitrators of public dispute? Is it our role to place emphasis where we decide, or do we merely reflect information from our sources as a concise reference resource? If we ignore our policy altogether without compromise, then what is the point of having them in the first place? I believe that we have a responsibility to reflect all aspects of this club's status rather than dismissing it out of hand. Unless you can present an example that sets an alternate precedent, then this article should allude to that claim even if they're kept separate. Listing the date of the relaunch can be held as accurate if you also list the club's own established timeline for neutrality purposes. This has been done before in the examples that I have laid out above. Under those circumstances I wouldn't argue that this article should be kept. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 20:37, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Edit While, the Oklahoma City Thunder agreed to leave the name and colors of the Sonics in Seattle, they did not relinquish the history and championships as the Baltimore Ravens did. But this once again re-establishes ownership prerogative in another case. Had the Browns taken 25 years to establish another team they would have still had the legitimate claim to thier titles and history. Just wanted to correct that bit of information there unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like people are preferring separate pages for the sake of clarity as there is a jarring difference between old and new. Would a separate article noting the current club claims the history of the older club suffice? --Blackbox77 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I've ever been opposed to such a compromise, so long as the club's history and the refounding date are given equal weight in a similar manner to how it's handled in the Oklahoma City/Seattle pages. Thank you. If such a compromise can be agreed to then I rescind my nomination. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 06:27, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As this new club wasn't actually founded when the original was, I'm hesitant to say the first founding date is equal to its "refounding." Whatever ends up being in the end result, a clear distinction needs to be made between what history the new Cosmos claim for themselves and what events transpired to create this new organization. In the end, I'm sure middle ground will be found. --Blackbox77 (talk) 07:14, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The same thing could be said about the Cleveland Browns. They are not even the same team, the franchise was essentially an expansion franchise with no history, yet they claim the original club's history by virtue of Art Modell rescinding it to a future franchise. They were out of business for four years. Had it been twenty I'm certain that we would still not be denying thier claim to that history. A case can be made that the Cosmos claim to that history is stronger than the Browns' since the original Browns are essentially the Baltimore Ravens. Noone is confused by this history. We make note of these facts yet still lend full credence to the club's official history. I'm happy with a compromise, and the circumstances of the club's history are inevitably going to be included in the article. The fact that the article is made separate from it's parent article should lend a clear enough distinction. I just want to see that a sincere effort at a real compromise is actually made this time around. Any compromise should be in line with prior precedent and eliminate any hint of bias. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 07:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Cleveland Browns/Baltimore Ravens situation is completely unrelated to this issue. The city of Cleveland never lost its NFL franchise. The NFL put the Cleveland franchise on reserve and promised it would resume play once a stadium was built and Art Modell was awarded an expansion franchise in Baltimore. In the case of the Cosmos there was no promise of a return. It wasn't even a possibility until a few months ago. Their team died, their competitor teams died and their whole league died. GONE. There was no league left to keep a franchise alive. Thank you for bringing up the Washington Nationals as they are a perfect example of why these pages should remain split. The Nationals was a franchise founded in 1969 as the Montreal Expos yet they also claim a history that goes back further than their founding to 1905 and belongs to 2 other MLB franchises Minnesota TwinsTexas Rangers.Washington Nationals: Since 1969 or 1905?. Similarly, the Cincinnati Reds were founded in 1882 yet claim a history dating back to 1869, part of which belongs to the Atlanta Braves. Like the Nationals and Reds, this new group claims a market heritage dating back to 1971 but New York Cosmos LLC was founded in 2010 as an effort to gain the 20th franchise in Major League Soccer. That's was this article is about! Cmjc80 (talk) 22:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously you cannot recognise a disputed claim to a history that is owned by another team. Fortunately there is no other soccer team claiming the Cosmos history since that history is precisely what they purchased. There's also the fact that their definition is undoubtedly legally correct. The idea that it was only the existence of the NFL that ensured that Cleveland kept their history is incomplete. In the end it was Art Modell's decision. It's your opinion that the existence of the league is required, but in a legal sense the Cosmos are the exact same entity. If they claim the same history, then it is only through a subjective set of prerequisites that we are setting right here on Wikipedia that can deny them that. unak¹⁹⁷⁸ 03:44, 10 March 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.

Mei Zhu

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

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

Molding of verifiable (that Liu Chang had a Persian concubine nicknamed Mei Zhu)(Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (十國春秋), vol. 61) with unverifiable/fictional material (citations to a novel (宋代宮闡史, History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty — which, despite its title containing "history," is clearly historical fiction rather than an actual historical work)). The verifiable parts of the content may make her notable, but I think it's a close call and that ultimately she was not notable; the current article itself is not salvageable because of its mixing of factual and fictional material, I believe. (The fictional material is not itself notable, unlike, for example, the Romance of the Three Kingdoms or the Journey to the West, in my opinion.) I will admit that it's not a clear-cut call, but I still believe the action to take is delete. (Those who are interested in discussing about this, please let me know if a translation of the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms passage would be necessary or helpful to your opinion; if it would, I would be happy to translate it.) --Nlu (talk) 09:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- -- Cirt (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:35, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The number of sources suggests notability. We can add a note to the text of the article that it's not clear how much of the story of Mei Zhu is fact and how much is legend. Henry V has a character named "Henry V" who bears a striking resemblence to Henry V. --Selket ^Talk 23:57, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• More info Please explain why you believe the woman is fictional or her deeds fictional. What is the evidence for and against? Thank you. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 07:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The woman was not fictional per se. Under the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms (which is a reliable source in my opinion) she existed. However, the reliable parts of what she did ends there. The rest of the article's descriptions of her alleged deeds cites a clearly fictional work. It would be as if someone cited Gore Vidal's Burr for the truth of the matter stated about what Aaron Burr did. --Nlu (talk) 11:48, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like things said about Catherine the Great. Let's have the translation and information about the author, please, to better assess. When in doubt, I tend to retain, but I'd like to get it right. If the information is large, can you set it up as a subpage? Thanks for the extra effort. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 12:17, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Let me start with the Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms, as the (again, I believe) reliable source. The source that I consider unreliable will take longer due to its more voluminous nature. But again, the diction used in the latter work clearly shows that it's a fictional work; it was not written in a historical tone and was written in the same style as historical fiction, not as history. (No, I don't know how to describe it, per se; as has been said, I know pornography when I see it, and this is the equivalent thereof; not only that, but the work also used completely anachronistic terms at times, further showing that it was fiction, not history. In addition, its chapters are labeled hui (回), clearly signifying the author's intent to designate it as a historical novel (whose genre is often known as Zhanghui Xiaoshuo (章回小說, literally, "novel that is divided into chapters") versus the actual serious historical works, whose chapters would be labeled juan (卷, literally, "scroll"); in the translations here, I am using "volume" for both, but it is clear that the context is completely different.) --Nlu (talk) 12:34, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • As it turned out, I erred slightly; the two fictional source citations are to two fictional sources, not one (I made the mistake because neither citation gave a source name); still, that does not make the citations more reliable; it makes them less, in my opinion. The second source below (which was simply titled "Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms" (五代十國), which was the name of the historical era) was clearly historical fiction as well, bearing the same signatures in diction and labeling its chapters as hui. --Nlu (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • It should be noted also that the "Mei Zhu" being 媚珠 ("beautiful pearl") rather than 媚豬 ("beautiful pig") assertion came from Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms; the historical source Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms referred to her as 媚豬, not 媚珠. --Nlu (talk) 13:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • In addition, one of the links used [20] is a blog that does quote from what appears to be a somewhat more serious source (The Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces) — but which expanded on the Mei Zhu origins without any real indication of truth or fiction. I'll translate it below as well. (It should be noted that it is clear that the fourth source plagiarized from the second source without acknowledgment; the second source was written during "Republican times" (as the cover indicated), which suggests that it was written in first half of 20th century; the fourth source appears to be a recent work.)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SGCQ (Spring and Autumn Annals of the Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/SDGCS (History of the Palace Secrets of the Song Dynasty translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/WDSG (Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms translation, done)
      • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mei Zhu/ZGDWHGSSHZMQJL (Full Records of the Secrets of the Chinese Emperors' Private Lives in Their Palaces translation, done)
        • I forgot to translate one paragraph in this final source, which was not per se Mei Zhu-related, but was mentioned in the article; I am adding it now. (This paragraph may make the least sense of all: how does someone "win" or "lose" in sexual intercourse?) --Nlu (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment: the use of these completely unreliable sources — indeed, sources that spout complete nonsense — in forming the article makes the article completely not credible and not encyclopedic. Once these unreliable sources are excised, I believe that she is no longer sufficiently notable to warrant an article of her own, but it is, I admit, a close call. (Frankly, if I were the colleague or advisor of one of the other authors who apparently did rely on these unreliable sources that are clear extrapolations rather than historical expansions of the historical account and which bordered on pornography, I would be completely ashamed. But of course, while I did consider it, I did not try to go into academia in history. Maybe after retirement I would.) --Nlu (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nonetheless, you've done a wonderful job. In the 4th article, I wonder if 'fat' and 'black' could be translated as voluptuous and dark? Great job, Nlu. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "fat" in this case appeared to be intended to be semi-derogatory in diction, so that's why I used "fat." As far as "black" is concerned, I use "black" when the character 黑 is used, where I would use "dark" when 暗 is used. Thanks for the compliment. --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with your notes or Redirect Mei Zhu to a new article titled something like 'Mei Zhu (legend)' that includes the original article with your polished translations in separate sections. Normally I'd be concerned about opinion and POV, but here you've carefully made arguments toward both sides, and I think along with the title, it would let the reader choose what to think once given all the facts. (Just the way I like it!) In other words, I propose you (1) create a new article Mei Zhu (legend) with your notes and translations augmenting the original story, and then (2) redirect Mei Zhu to your new article. Would that address all issues? Respectfully, --UnicornTapestry (talk) 18:44, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel that a "legends" article is clearly undue; it's so trashy as to be beyond reason even for a "legends" article. Further, again, none of these works was a significant work of literature, unlike the
    Fengshen Yanyi or Legend of the Bearded Guest (虯髯客傳). --Nlu (talk) 19:26, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • But let me clarify again; her status as a favored concubine of an emperor may be sufficient for notability, but I still think she falls short. --Nlu (talk) 19:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example, I draw your attention to
      Valeria Messalina, who like Mei Zhu has multiple sources of varying degree from Tacitus to graffiti. I conclude that not only is precedence available, but your efforts (a) give us valuable semi)historical information and (b) help readers decide what is true or not. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Right, but Mei Zhu was not Catherine the Great. Had she been a female sovereign, or even the wife of a sovereign, I might agree, but she's a concubine whose real name was not known and whose imperial consort rank, if any, was not even recorded in history. I don't see the situation as analogous. --Nlu (talk) 00:21, 6 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Museum of Broken Memories

The Museum of Broken Memories (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD

)

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

Fails

• Keep. Five minutes of searching found several reviews covering this game by reliable sources. I must strongly recommend that Filibusti actually involve himself with the developers in a communal way as opposed to jumping the gun to attempt to delete articles. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please link to these reviews from RS's. I can't find any. Also, please stop trying to make this a matter of me, the discussion is on whether the article is notable or not. Filibusti (talk) 08:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No significant reliable sources/reviews to indicate notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 09:04, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] Five minutes of searching. At the very least, the article should be implemented into the parent article Jonas Kyratzes. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment First 2 are from JustAdventures, which I don't know if it is a
      WP:RS or not. Third has no content. Fourth is about the developer, not the game. Fifth has not content, just lists system specs. Ravendrop 09:25, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Just Adventure is indeed an RS; see here:
        WP:VG/RS. And while the remaining three are not directly demonstrating notability, it demonstrates that deletion is not the answer in this case, and that there may me more coverage if we were to dig deeper. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:27, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
    • Thanks, Ravendrop. I just edit conflicted with you, so I'll just post what I was going to say just in case it hasn't already been said.
      None of those sources are even remotely reliable. Source 1 and Source 2 are absolutely unreliable because the website's "About Us" page states, "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email." This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed. Source 3 is not even a significant review; it's just a listing. Source 4 is merely a passing mention. Source 5 is another listing—no review. Goodvac (talk) 09:31, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • • "If you would like to have your independently developed games listed here, please email" shows us their policy for being contacted; you wrote "This site in effect lists any and every game they are emailed." but in fact we have no indication whatsoever about their policy for inclusion. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you would like to argue that JustAdventure is not reliable, please take it up with
        the people who declared it as such. The About Us page does not say that any independently developed video game will be included; it merely explains to independent developers that they can contact them if they want to submit their video game for inclusion. Finally, do you presume to argue that the inclusion of a video game on their web site is accompanied by a review and an interview with its developer? I do not see anything in the About Us page that suggests that for even a moment. To quote the Video game Sources' description of the web site: "The site and it's staff have been cited in numerous publications and have been the subject of multiple interviews by online gaming news sites with several of its members receiving prestigous awards for their work." - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:44, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • A few editors on WikiProject Video Games do not constitute a consensus in determining whether a source is reliable.
          WP:V required by Wikipedia policy.
          
          1. The first paragraph of [26]:

          Synchronicty. It's the term philosophers use to descibre coincidence and how random things almost seem to happen for a reason. Synchronicity is when you've searched everywhere for a particular book, every library and bookstore in your area has been scorued. You are all set to give up when you stumble upon a copy left behind on the very parkbench you choose to rest at. Synchronicity is when Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of. It is the same force in action that saw me offered the opportunity ot review the game shrotly after.

          This paragraph contains numerous spelling errors. To name a few, "Synchonicty", "descibre", "shrotly", "scorued", and "ot". A reliable source would have received editorial oversight to correct these errors. One or two typos does not discount an article from being reliable. But when the entire article is peppered with spelling errors, one must wonder how much editorial oversight it has received. Second, the author of the source states: "Jonas Kyratzes contacted me out of the blue about his new game, which I had not heard of". The developer of the video game's seeking publicity from an unreliable source does not establish notability.
          
          2. [27]: "It all started with an email" (from the developer). This email interview conducted by the same author as the previous debunked source certainly does not establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • Your logic seeks to make it that much more difficult to establish reliable sources, and to denounce the "few editors" who, in an established process, felt that Just Adventure met the threshold of reliability, is to denounce a system that seeks to make articles of higher quality (if you'll note the much-higher average quality found in video game articles due to the synthesis of people finding the sources). Without consensus, what possible way can we EVER verify what sources are reliable? Are you implying that video game editors are biased toward declaring sources reliable? Are you implying that one of the driving forces behind its declaration as reliable - User:David Fuchs, an administrator and Arbitrator, who has written many featured articles and even written an essay on featuring articles - has a poor grasp of what is a reliable source? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I notice the logical fallacy
              appeal to authority in action here. Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • • Hm. Did you notice that he is discussing actual WP policy? Although the letter of WP policy is occasionally taken far too seriously and the spirit of it is often subverted, I see that you believe in the authority of WP policy enough to quote RS and V yourself. While Just Adventure is on that page, it is a RS, as far as Wikipedians are concerned. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
              • I notice a lack of proper response. Great to see an editor focus on the fact that I used his status as an administrator as evidence of his know-how. Not the many articles that he increased to featured quality that he had made over the years that he has edited here, thereby proving my point that you have no valid claim against Just Adventure of being unreliable if your best argument is that a system where a few editors make a decision on the reliability of sources is not a proper system (which entails no proper system to ever verify if any sources are reliable, ever). Kudos. Would you care to explain to me a better way to determine reliability on sources outside of a lengthy case-by-case basis? Outside of a system controlled by administrators, which you would obviously disagree with since it would be implying that administrators should be the only ones with control over reliable references, how could we possibly determine reliability in sources without forming a consensus as is done on the WP:VG/RS page? Again, I must ask if you are implying if video game editors have a cabal to make unreliable sources reliable? Otherwise, why is such a system less viable than Articles for deletion? What makes this very discussion valid? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:51, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please, your rants aren't getting you anywhere. I am no longer arguing the unreliability of JustAdventure as a whole. A case-by-case basis is the best way to go about examining the sources. Please explain how a review riddled with excessive spelling errors (thus indicating a lack of editorial oversight) and an interview personally initiated by the developer establishes notability of this game. Goodvac (talk) 10:28, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Delete while there's some reliable coverage, it isn't significant enough to merit inclusion. --Teancum (talk) 14:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep Implement these sources, and see how the article looks then. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please explain which sources, when implemented into the article, will allow The Museum of Broken Memories to pass the notability guidelines. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I believe the accepted notability guideline for software is
  WP:NSOFT
  . I summarize it's criteria as whether the software is:

1. influential (in its field),
2. used as an example in teaching,
3. often referenced (reviews, walk-throughs, parodied, etc), or
4. historically significant.

The sources discussed above don't appear to establish any of these requirements. They might serve to establish the author/artist's notability, but

WP:INHERIT. Speed8ump (talk) 00:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

First of all, those are not 'requirements', since they are not exclusive. As with all such lists, an article that meets -any- of those criteria is acceptable. Secondly nobody seems to get that the criteria for deletion is and always will be

WP:VG/GL Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment. The proposal for discussion is actually focused on the lack of reliable sources, rather than secondary criteria. An article may not meet the secondary criteria, but still meet notability through the
  general notability guidelines. That said, the notability of software is a bit different from that of video games. You can view the current proposal and participate in the discussion here. Cind.amuse 22:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep sources have been shown to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Please list the sources you believe establish notability. Goodvac (talk) 02:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• the two sources from justadventure, and I think jayisgames is a RS in this context due to the editorial oversight. And while your arguments about justadventure have merit, it seems to also be a reliable source (if one that needs a spellcheck). Hobit (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Where does it say that Jay Is Games has editorial oversight? Goodvac (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The Just Adventure review and Jay is Games review carry just enough usable content IMO for an article in terms of
  common sense. It's an independent video game, not aircraft design or trigonometry. Someoneanother 20:13, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Let me put it another way. On the 1st of January 2008 that interview states "I'm John Bardinelli (JohnB), a freelance writer who stumbled into video game journalism about five years ago." His latest post on JiG is today: [28], he's still there. At what point is this man supposed to get a seal of approval as an expert on indie games? Who's supposed to come along and bestow that on him? There has to be a point where the site's content is reliable enough to cover its own area, within which it is a major site. This is not a BLP, this is not a technical or academic area, this is not an area where more commercial sites or printed magazines cover in anything like the same depth. Its usage does not damage WP, but refusing it as a source because it doesn't pass between some hazy goalposts denies WP content, which is another matter. Someoneanother 22:36, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep If those sources are considered reliable ones, then its fine.
  Jay is Games started with just one guy, but added others over time. Their spelling or writing ability is not relevant in any way. You are more likely to get an honest review from sites like this, than a printed magazine that sustains itself entirely by ads from the major game companies it reviews games of. Dream Focus 01:15, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

True, dat. The IGN network also has very poor coverage of early vid games, which indicates they do not do research, because there is a relatively tiny number of early games to cover. Therefore it is also likely they are getting their information from the devs. Anarchangel (talk) 02:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• comment I did not feel that I had the knowledge to make a comment on the game, but having looked into the references as a result of looking at the designers page. I would have to agree the deeper you look the less they seem to come from RS. If the game has sufficient novelty it might still pass the inclusion criteria for GNG and certainly the very small number of users who appear to have found the game comment favourably but there doesn't seem to be an independent expert source that supports this view so it would probably count as original research or POV.Tetron76 (talk) 19:35, 9 March 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. T. Canens (talk) 08:15, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Jonas Kyratzes

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

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

Fails

• Strong keep. [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] Five minutes of searching. And a strong recommendation that the nominator, before nominating yet another indie video game developer, actually contact the editors involved with concerns related to the article instead of jumping straight to the AfD process. Not every problem is fixed with a vote. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 08:46, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those are not reliable sources, the others do not go into non-trivial detail of Kyratzes. In fact, those mentions are all extremely trivial. Filibusti (talk) 08:53, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How did you verify their reliability? Did you check the reliable sources Wikipedia page for video games, located

here? Or did you merely assume that they were not reliable? The Guardian specifically included him in a showcase of independent developers; by the nature of the article, this demonstrates notability - inclusion in such an article from The Guardian, of all sources, is not trivial whatsoever. The Just Adventure interview (Just Adventure is a reliable source, just to let you know) is obviously non-trivial. Escapist Magazine, another reliable source, makes specific note of a comment that he made on video games. Uncommon for a non-notable person to be mentioned in that context. Just Adventure, again, mentions him, discussing his development style and the sort. Did you even read the links or attempt to verify their reliability? If you are going to so easily dismiss such effort, then I would not recommend that you participate in any improvement of anything related to independent video game development. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - The article nomination is in good faith, and the arguments for deletion are valid. However, I'd take a step back and ask whether this guy has achieved enough in his professional work to rate a mention in a technology-driven encyclopedia... yes, he has. - Richard Cavell (talk) 10:10, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 11:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Note: This debate has been included in the
  talk) 11:36, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep after implementing the sources that Retro Hippie found. Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 14:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Lots of good sources and certainly enough for notability.  Nipsonanomhmata  ^(Talk) 15:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep as per New Age.
  Takeo 20:22, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Reliable sources mentioning the guy have been found. Dream Focus 01:03, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One of his works,

• Note: The article under discussion here has been {{rescue}} flagged by an editor for review by the Article Rescue Squadron. Yaksar (let's chat) 07:17, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I found it very surprising that this person has been getting such a strong consensus to keep. I read the article and found it difficult to see what could pass the GNG guidelines and despite the above votes I would strongly recommend that this is not worthy of an article for the following:

• GNG clearly states that there should be multiple RS on the subject looking at the links in this thread there is one.
• The one RS is the guardian for being part of a competition not even for winning it.
• in the guardian article a claim is made that is completely unsubstantiated (there are no primary or non-RS to back this claim) and that is that he is a "polymath". Polymath would be easy to verify and for a profile of such an individual who designed games see Demis Hassabis. This would mean that the article has not undergone the fact checking required that is what is needed for a RS. Without that line it is only on the basis of notability ofthe games that could give him notability.
• The video games is a high-profile area. Many games make the main news. While project video games lacks criteria for biographies this would not currently pass even if they did.
• The normal criteria for an author or boardgame designer include that notable awards have been awarded for the book or games. This is lacking here.
• while the wikileaks game may warrant a passing reference in a wikileaks article, this is not the first game themed on a news event. Such games for the financial crisis made the news.
• The sources indicate that he was unable to charge for a game. There were over 1 million games produced for the ZX spectrum. Clearly writing a game is not enough for a profile.

While notability is not dependent upon time, I cannot see sufficient coverage to show significant note in the field nor any individual accomplishment of note. Even the primary sources seem very amateur for someone working in game design. The future may allow for notability but this clearly has not yet been managed. Tetron76 (talk) 13:52, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allow me to respond to each point.

1. Every single link I provided is considered a reliable source. What makes MSNBC, a hugely well-known web site, not reliable?
2. That is a strong mis-characterization of notability. An article need not POSITIVE coverage, merely coverage period. It wouldn't hurt his notability if he won, but it doesn't hurt it that he lost.
3. If you wish to discuss the deeper argument that video game web sites have poor criteria for inclusion, discuss it on WP:VG. You can't use your own POV to denounce video game web sites as viable sources.
4. To require that he won an award is an arbitrary criteria. What if he was called the worst developer ever by many reliable sources, but not given an award? Logically, according to the arbitrary rule of an award given to a notable individual, he is not notable.
5. Games made for the financial crisis were not the first games themed on a news event. Such games were made for school shootings. But there have been games made for news events before that. Is the only notable game based on a news event the first one in the history of video games?
6. That last point doesn't make any sense and has nothing to do with notability and everything to do with asserting that a video game developer needs to distribute their games through a publisher to possibly be notable.

As is, the problem isn't lack of reliable sources, but the perception that video game web sites cannot assert notability and that indie video game developers have extra threshold. Notability requires that a sourced be covered in multiple reliable sources in a non-trivial sense. At what point do we extend bias against video game people to say that video game people are inherently less notable than people in film? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

while the sites can provide reliable sources several of the links that you provided are already dead, ie no mention of the subject. My point that hasn't been answered by the links is what makes him notable over any other independent game designer. The only statement I saw on him rather than his game was in the guardian but since there is no evidence that he is a polymath, I would argue that this statement should be discounted.

My point about no VG project criterria is that it is then the assumption that he should meet the GNG. Now I didn't try to find all of the broken links you made but from the ones that are left, there was nothing other than the games themselves that could make him notable. For me the games don't seem exceptionally novel or innovative so he doesn't appear unique from a design perspective. This only leaves one possible criteria for notability and this is for the games themselves being so notable that he warrants an article as well as the game.

It may be that WP:CREEP has been happening for a while but this would not pass the Articles for creation standards on the current evidence.Tetron76 (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not one single link that I provided is dead. Game Set Watch's WikiLeaks article is still up, both of Just Adventure's articles are still up, The Guardian's coverage of notable indie developers is still up, MSNBC's WikiLeaks article is still up, and The Escapist's use of his opinion for their article is still up. To say that even one of these links is irrelevant to the subject is a flat-out lie, or at best, an entirely misinformed statement. Wikipedia requires that we establish notability by non-trivial coverage by reliable sources. I'd love to know why fulfilling this does not make him more notable than "any" indie developer (there are likely thousands of indie video game developers that have no coverage, so it's fair to say that he is more notable simply be common sense). And am I to understand that a reliable source is not enough to verify information? By your logic, if The Guardian makes a statement on any subject that isn't one that everyone else makes, The Guardian can never be used. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth; that is, whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." Is he a polymath? Who knows - but more importantly, who cares, when calling him a polymath is acceptable for The Guardian's link? You seem to think that he has to be a visionary of independent video game development. Do you propose that we delete Uwe Boll for being an uninspired film director? And explain to me why an indie video game developer should not be notable for his works. Shigeru Miyamoto is not notable for biking, gardening, or cooking - he is notable for the video games that he makes. He could be the most bland, uninspired, and outright mediocre video game developer, and he would be as notable as he is now if he had all of this coverage. Mention on Wikipedia requires verifiable coverage of a subject, not quality of a subject. To cite WP:CREEP when you've made weird attempts to bypass policies like WP:V, and attempting to denounce sources as unreliable while clearly not actually knowing if this is true, is entirely ironic. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:21, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Shigeru Miyamoto notability can be clearly evidenced with numerous awards... I was never questioning if he had done the actions claimed in the sources merely that they did not make him notable MTG with fairly loose criteria don't accept winning the world championships counts as notable.

If his actions were non-notable, then there would not be non-trivial coverage of him by reliable sources - which is far more important than whatever notability criteria you think exists. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Kyratzes was prominently featured in the February issue of GEE, a glossy German gaming magazine (http://www.geemag.de/). The article misspells his last name but it has many quotations, details about his person and a photo. I have a copy of the magazine and will add it as a reference later. He was also apparently featured in an article in Journalist, a large German "media magazine" for professional journalists (http://www.journalist.de/). I don't have access to that though.IndieGamesGermany (talk) 20:35, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If he was prominently featured in German RS there may well be a genuine case but he doesn't have a german wikipedia page. But having now tracked through www.google.de as well as googling all of the games there is very little on-line evidence and it is certainly more than 5 minutes searching even to find the above refernces. The first page download links have very low stats for games of notes. While the game with a wikipage may have a case for novelty reading some fo the non-RS comments the number of hits on the blogs giving major coverage are very very low. Other references on the page are coming from a person that he shares a blog - it would be better to use primary sources.

The general google profile is very weak for someone who is notable - try google images for example. There are pages which should not be anywhere in google page rank if he was well known as a designer. His games seem to lack the numbers I would expect too. Creation of a page should wait for note to be established such as through an award or major coverage I don't see why deletion should be in a different category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:19, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of a German Wikipedia page is not relevant to this discussion. Google is not relevant to this discussion. We needn't look at unreliable sources to verify information, and your argument is dependent on them, while we have provided several sources that discuss him to a significant degree - with not one of them showing any degree of unreliability. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are we assuming bad faith? Are you accusing IndieGamesGermany of being a liar? What you are doing is attempting to put an exceedingly high criteria of doubt on the existence of this. Please provide any policy that requires that an editor must provide online documentation of existence. Again, I will ask why The Guardian suddenly has stopped being major coverage. And MSNBC. And the German gaming magazine (which, suffice it to say, does not require online evidence that the article exists). Tell the hundreds of featured articles that rely on print sources that they have to prove through online means that their print sources mention the subject article - I'm sure that they would love to explain that they needn't do so. Your argument seems to be based around trying to devalue otherwise quality sources by attempting to establish that indie developers need to have stronger references than other developers. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:02, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you appear to lack objectivity on this subject. But I have now done several hours of searching using the games and the authors name which is made easy by it being unique. If it was not for the guradian article it would be clearcut to delete. The content of the article is important more than someones name appearing and this is the point you appear to missing.

It is possible that he is on the cusp of becoming notable but at the time of the article creation there was no evidence to support this. And it is not correct to keep a page because the sources might be coming... This is not a case of "presumed" sources the only match on the games developer sites was basically a one line response to a game advert from 2001. Some sites are editable by anyone and have very little content.

I admit that I don't have experience of games recently but the downloads from sites that quote statistics don't have any of his games in the top 4000 freeware games with less than 1% of total downloads. Very few sites have profiles on him. There is little information on the games to let someone who did know the game set it apart from other games.

My comment about the german article was to do with not having details it is difficult to pass a judgement.

But I have friends with better online status in terms of u-tube hits,twitter and I am finding it difficult to find even implicit evidence that until he wins an award or a game makes a list, a respect person in the industry comments on him that he is as notable as the other people in the german game designer category.Tetron76 (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just like if it weren't for the hundreds of references in Batman, the character's article would be deleted. That's faulty logic - this isn't a discussion of things that did not happen. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:11, 10 March 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.