Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2010 February 6 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2010_February_6

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Seems like a perpetual stub, unless the term itself is going to merit an entire article, which seems unlikely. It should probably be a redirect, but I don't know to where. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOTDIC. The article is nothing but a definition of the term, and while it has some informal usage in the media, it's not notable on its own. Maybe redirect to Holy Land, which covers the geographical region "Israel-Palestine" would fall under. Swarm^(Talk) 00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I'm going to agree with Swarm on this one, since it does seem more like a definition. I think if not deleted a discussion on where to redirect it would be necessary. Plus I'm not sure of the relevance of the article. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 04:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Nominator says that "it should probably be a redirect". Sure, but only as a redirect to a page that says "There were no results matching the query. You may create the page '.Israel-.Palestine', but consider checking the search results below to see whether it is already covered." As the history shows [1], this was a bad idea when the nominator thought there should be a redirect to "Palestine (region)". Predictably, other people thought it should be a redirect to "Israel" or to "Palestine" or not a redirect at all but an article with content. There have even been fights over whether it should have an Israel or a Palestine flag to describe it with the words "This is a [take your pick, Israel or Palestine]-related stub." Remove both this and the redirect to it ("Israel/Palestine"). Nobody ever needed this in the first place. Mandsford (talk) 15:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki to wiktionary. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 05:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete per WP:CSD#G6. — ξ^xplicit 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Unnecessary disambiguation between the main topic and one other article. Accomplished with {{for}} in the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete:There is no point of a disambiguation page.--Written by GeneralCheese 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per {{db-disambig}} and CSD-G6. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Agree with Gene93k - The article Red Vines already has a header stating where to go if you intended on finding the article on the song. Curiously, I believe that this article would be warranted IF there were more 'Red Vines' articles, which there are not. 2 different articles is to small, this can be avoided with my first statement. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 04:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete meets criteria for Template:db-disambig. Boleyn2 (talk) 21:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Einstein Academy Charter School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Non-notable K-8 school; no outside references. MelanieN (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• BTW don't be misled by all the Google News hits about controversy over a proposed charter school named Albert Einstein Academy; those are for a different school in the Santa Clarita Valley. The school I am nominating for deletion is in San Diego. --MelanieN (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can delete it if you want, but I just thought it would be notable because it was the first IB-authorized school in San Diego. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Legokid (talk • contribs) 23:19, 6 February 2010

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per rare/unique dual-language teaching method [2], IB status, and first IB school in locality. I'll improve the article in the coming days. See also articles mentioned here. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per davidwr. Tan | 39 17:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by nominator: davidwr has come up with some outside sources that may establish notability. Please do not close this discussion until he has had a chance to add that information into the article. I will work with him to see if he can bring the article up to Wikipedia standards. If he succeeds I will withdraw the nomination. --MelanieN (talk) 17:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do not have time to improve the article before the AFD ends. If this isn't a clear "keep" or clear "delete" please consider erring on the side of caution and marking it as "keep, for now" or sending it to WP:INCUBATOR for improvement. All editors are encouraged to improve the article, please don't wait up for me. Personally, I still believe the article is worth keeping as-is, but it definitely could use expansion and clarification. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 12:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per davidwr, this is possibly a good example of WP:BEFORE and how it can be applied. RFerreira (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - clear claim to notability. TerriersFan (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Generally you want to avoid maintaining a elementary or middle school unless they are truly notable. All schools in this range are targets of the students vandalism and at that age, vandalism is about all they can "contribute." I watch a lot of middle schools. They are pain. Those of you who define them, then walk away, are the lucky ones. Student7 (talk) 14:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, that is merely your opinion. Wikipedia has zero policies or guidelines against maintaining articles that are high vandalism targets, and I'm extremely confident that an article would never be deleted based on its potential to attract vandalism. The solution for such articles is page protection, not deletion. Tan | 39 14:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt if that is the reasoning - since all high schools have articles, and they are even bigger targets for vandalism. I think the general feeling here (unofficial but generally accepted) is that high schools are automatically considered notable, whereas lower schools have to establish their notability (or else the encyclopedia would be overwhelmed with articles about every school in the world). Usually the coverage is all local, as it is in this case. But having stories in a major regional newspaper (again, like this one) is probably good enough for a lower school. --MelanieN (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Clearly fails WP:ENT (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:47, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Fails to meet WP:BLP, WP:N, WP:V, WP:ENT. Previously tagged with speedy deletion, but an admin said the BLP article itself claims its notability regardless of the unsourced status quo, so I instead take the matter to the venue. No news can be found on the subject. The only thing I can find his notability is an IMDb entry, but which is not a reliable source. Caspian blue 21:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no outside sources except IMDB, and his single role (in a defunct soap) does not make him notable. I have a bit of a problem, however, with the way this article was treated. After speedy deletion was declined, an editor went through the article and stripped out almost all of its content, leaving only a single sentence. I know that editing is permitted during deletion discussion, but this almost amounted to blanking the page. --MelanieN (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: Yes. If you look at the removed information, you will see that some of it is biased, and some of it makes some controversial claims about the subject. Since all of it was unsourced, I removed it per WP:BLP. This should not affect the outcome of the deletion discussion. After all, the subject's notability should be evaluated based on his acting career and whether significant coverage exists in reliable sources, not on unsourced contentious claims. Note that the removal happened before the article was nominated for deletion. decltype (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep, The IMDB data is relevant, some more references had to bo inserted--Rirunmot 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The IMDB data is relevant and reliable, but it is not nontrivial coverage pr. WP:N. Taemyr (talk) 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• IMDb data is relevant, but unreliable since it can be edited by anybody. I've also seen many incorrect info from the website.--Caspian blue 17:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• While anyone can submit information that information is vetted by paid staff, and as such does pass our bar for fact checking required for a reliable source. Taemyr (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• No, I've been working on film related articles, but IMDB is never considered a reliable source by the WP:WikiProject Film. Linking the entry as an external link would be useful though.--Caspian blue 09:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:ENT. A voice role in a soap opera isn't notable. Being in 75 episodes might sound like a recurring role until you consider that there were 414 episodes. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Does not meet any of the three notability criteria of WP:ENT. Wikipeterproject (talk) 21:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was To be transwiki'd. Article to be transwiki'd to Wikiversity (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:00, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

History Essay Format & Thesis Statement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

This article constitutes a guide or a how-to, but no encyclopedic content. _noisy jinx ^huh? 22:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I have rewritten the article. Please unmark for deletion. Kind regards.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) 17:49, 6 February 2010
• Delete per WP:NOTHOWTO, not an encyclopedic article. There also seems to be some original research issues, though those could probably be corrected. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment I can agree with transwiki as well. It just doesn't belong here. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment It's actually quite a good essay. I'm afraid it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a place for how-to guides, but is there some related Wiki area that it could be moved to? --MelanieN (talk) 01:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Agree, it's well-written and undoubtedly helpful. Just not in the right place, unfortunately. _noisy jinx ^huh? 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. Jll (talk) 10:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree. Transwiki to Wikibooks and/or Wikiversity. -- The Anome (talk) 14:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Transwiki as above. I agree that this is among the best HOWTO essays I have seen, but unfortunately it is simply not encyclopedic material.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Let's remember that "An encyclopedia is a comprehensive written compendium holding information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge... and transmit it to those who will come after us". This article is excellent and seems to follow the guidelines and appears to be in encyclopedic format. As for research, consider the fact that the author seems to have experience in his field. There are no "how-to" explanations or steps. The material is presented as information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.182.148 (talk) 11:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 76.66.182.148 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
• KEEP - this article now seems to be in encyclopedic format and will benefit the general public, including students of high school, pre-U and unversity levels. Kind regards to all.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Keep As it stands, the article is written in a similar encyclopedia format such as http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Five_paragraph_essay.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
• Comment: As there is already a (somewhat short) article on Thesis statement, and the content on that topic covered here is indeed very good, may I suggest incorporating the relevant part into that article? It would make a useful addition and keep that part on WP (and make it easier to find as well). As for the rest, there are several articles out there on topics covered in this one (Footnote, Quote or Essay) that could probably do with some good and well-written additional content. After that the existing article could be transwikied. Just a thought... _noisy jinx ^huh? 14:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: A thesis is one thing and a history essay (thesis essay) is something else altogether. This is a unique entry as it defines the thesis statement, the history essay format and does a wonderful job in highlighting the formatting features of such an essay. The thesis statement is a single sentence which becomes an integral part of the essay. This is a great article to keep as is; a must keep.— Mister.mansour (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment: I think the quality of the article is essentially unquestioned. If it was, it would be a more or less unanimous delete. The fact that it is an excellent good guide (and I stress my opinion on both sides of this statement) makes it difficult. It is worth keeping, both its contents and its current form, but, and this is my highly subjective opinion, it is not encyclopedic. An article like this would not be in any printed encyclopedia (you are welcome to put me right on this one), so where's the reason to keep it on WP? There are, as stated above, tons of information worth preserving. It's not the "what", just the "how" that makes it difficult. How about splitting it, merging the Thesis part into the existing Thesis statement and creating and "History Essay" article from the part covering that? Or are they interdependent no matter what? _noisy jinx ^huh? 17:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Transwiki Should be preserved somehow. Remember Wikipedia's rules are not all carved in stone to be enforced by the Inquisition.... Peridon (talk) 20:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: But it's pretty much all opinion and original research. WP:OR actually is written in stone, as much as a Wikipedia policy could be. And I'm sorry, but this is grossly unencyclopedic. It's like one history teacher's class guidelines; it has absolutely no universality. Consider the requirement to use "Letter-sized 8.5”x11” plain white paper." Well, in Europe are they allowed to use A4? Pretty please? And "Neatly presented text that shows pride in one's work"? "Tone: in a history or thesis essay, the writer does not nag, preach or give advice"? Spare me. If people's "moral support" !votes above somehow wind up in this being closed as a no consensus, it will be a joke.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I just realized that three of these votes were from the article's author, User:Mister.mansour, and another one from an IP which has edited nothing but the article and this AfD. Guess there isn't as much support as I thought. *whew*  Glenfarclas  (talk) 21:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I disagree with using comments such as “spare me” since this is a little mocking in nature and not appropriate in this type of forum. Rather, that individual could have edited the entry if he disagreed with “the writer does not nag, preach or give advice”. In the meantime, I have verified this statement with an English Language Arts post-graduate student (now a professor) and this is apparently accurate. However, although there is no consensus to delete this page as specified by Wikipedia deletion policy, I suggest the article be deleted anyway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.165.14 (talk) 01:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is clearly where the consensus is in the discussion, though there seems to be some hope that the article could be improved and perhaps be ready for inclusion at a later date. For anyone, particularly Dskwiki, I would be happy to userfy this article after I delete it, which would allow it to be worked on outside of Wikipedia article space. There is no prejudice against recreation if a better sourced, less advertorial version of this article can be written in the future. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:18, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Promotion for non-notable company; article by company's marketing department. I have been unable to find any significant third-party coverage, only press releases. Haakon (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Haakon (talk) 21:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily Delete: per {{db-spam}} - unremarkable as well. -petiatil ^{»user»speak} 04:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Copied from talk page by Peridon (talk) 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"ReadyTalk is a "notable company" and here are a few reasons: 1. 10 years in business and $20M/year in 2009 revenue 2. Survived the Dotcom bust and bootstrapped the business in difficult economic times 3. One of the fastest growing technology companies (both in Colorado and US - cited by Deloitte) 4. One of the best companies to work for (last 3 years top 3 in small business category - cited by jobbing.com) 5. Dan and Scott recognized by Ernst and Young for Entrepreneurship (winner in Rocky Mountain Region, finalist at National level)" Posted by Dskwiki

• This is fine, but it is not clear that the subject passes WP:GNG. By the way, am I right to assume that you are Dan King? Haakon (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Errr, no I'm not. I'm Peridon. I just copied this over for fairness. (I also put hangon tags on for people whose articles I've SD tagged if they can't get them in the right place.) dskwiki might well be Dan King. Peridon (talk) 21:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my reply was intended at Dskwiki :-) Haakon (talk) 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not Dan, but closely related :) I will provide additional references for the GNG requirement tomorrow. The article needs some work. Do you have an example of a well written corporate page that follows the wikipedia guidelines? (Dskwiki (talk) 03:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• ReadyTalk has received significant media attention during the past five years as well as been the recipient of numerous awards, which should deem the company ‘notable’ according to Wikipedia’s GNG. Media coverage includes articles in the following publications:

The Denver Business Journal

ReadyTalk develops niche in Web-conferencing world:http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2007/04/30/story9.html

ReadyTalk bumps up hiring plans: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/02/16/story3.html

‘Agile’ Rally doubles up on revenue, staff, clients: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2009/02/02/story2.html

ReadyTalk cultivates revenue in rocky 2009: http://denver.bizjournals.com/denver/stories/2010/02/08/focus6.html

InfoWorld

The new tech interviews: http://www.infoworld.com/d/data-management/new-tech-interviews-811

KUSA/9News

Ritter targets tax exemptions to fill budget gap: http://www.9news.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=131539

CBS4

Denver Business Journal On Videoconferencing Company: http://cbs4denver.com/video/?id=53184@kcnc.dayport.com

FOX Business

ReadyTalk Launches Platinum Web Event, a Cost-Effective Technology and Professional Services Package for High Profile Web Events: http://www.foxbusiness.com/story/readytalk-launches-platinum-web-event-cost-effective-technology-professional/

Industry publication Webinar Success

ReadyTalk upgrades web conferencing: http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2009/10/readytalk-upgrades-web-conferencing.html

ReadyTalk adds event management: http://wsuccess.typepad.com/webinarblog/2008/04/readytalk-adds.html

In addition to some of the media coverage mentioned above, ReadyTalk has received the following awards:

- Deloitte Fast 500 as one of the fastest growing technology companies, 2007, 2008 & 2009 (http://www.alphatecspine.com/PDFs/Fast500List_1113082.pdf, http:/www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-UnitedStates/Local%20Assets/Documents/TMT_us_tmt/us_tmt_Fast500winnersbyrank_101509.pdf)

- Best small/medium sized company to work for in Colorado, 2007, 2008 & 2009 (http://denver.jobing.com/blog_post.asp?post=5709, http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/best-companies-to-work-for-in-colorado-2008/, http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/best-companies-to-work-for-in-colorado-09/page-9/)

- Founders, Dan King and Scott King, received the Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year 2008 Award in the Software Services category for the Rocky Mountain Region (http://www.ey.com/US/en/Newsroom/News-releases/Media-Release-20-06-08ADC)

- Colorado Technology Association Apex Awards nominee 2009 (http://coloradotechnology.org/Events/Apex-Awards.aspx)

- Colorado Biz Magazine Top Company finalist 2009 (http://www.cobizmag.com/articles/2008-top-company-finalists/)

- Fastest-Growing Denver-Area Private Companies, Denver Business Journal 2009

- CSIA DEMOgala Showcase Company People’s Choice Award Winner (2009)

While I’m sure all companies believe that their company is notable, I think ReadyTalk meets Wikipedia’s requirements for notability as we’ve received significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. As an employee of ReadyTalk, I recognize that there are also concerns about our current entry's neutral point of view. If you agree that we meet the notability requirements, we will take immediate steps to correct the entry with contributions from reliable and independent sources. I look forward to your comments. (Dskwiki (talk) 02:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

• Delete I've given it a bit, but it doesn't look notable to me yet. The refs look a bit on the 'press release' or 'taken from company handout' style to me, rather than independent coverage. I do like the style of the company, and wish them luck. As to altering the article after we decide it notable, that's cart and horse. Put the refs in and adopt NPOV and you're more likely to get a keep. No rain checks here.... Peridon (talk) 19:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I've also watched this article for some time and it still appears to be a promotional item written by an insider, not a neutral and unbiased editor. Notability comes with time or exceptional coverage, neither of which has been achieved. It would also be best written by someone from the outside that does not have a vested interest in the content. IMHO. Calltech (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Needs Peer Review Again with full disclosure, I am a ReadyTalk employee, and as such have better insight into the company, but do not come from an unbiased point of view. While I think ReadyTalk has passed the Wikipedia Notability Guidelines (here is another example from today’s edition of the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/business/ci_14388065), I don’t think the article is well written or from enough independent sources. Without waging a PR campaign to introduce new and independent editors to the article, which I don’t think is in the interest of Wikipedia, I can see why Wikipedians would want to take the article down. At this point, I am not convinced that it is in the best interest of ReadyTalk to have the article posted without strong peer review or reliable sources of independent content and varying points of view. (Dskwiki (talk) 16:26, 12 February 2010 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 03:03, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unlike the other cities listed in {{FictionalSoapOperaCities}}, Los Angeles really exists. The series is notable, the real-world location is notable, some of the series' characters may be notable, but the article's subject, a fictional version of a real place, does not appear to be notable. I checked several books on TV series, and nothing about the fictionalized version of this place is noted in those books. Some content may be merge-able into other articles, but this article is unsourced and does not appear to be sourceable. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Judging by these blank sections, the original author(s) planned to expand this article, but later abandoned the effort. Firsfron of Ronchester 20:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete When I think of all the filmed-in-Hollywood TV shows set in and around Los Angeles, I suppose that we could make an entire atlas of fictitious streets and restaurants that have been created by scriptwriters. I'm afraid that an alternate universe L.A. isn't a major part of the storyline of The Bold and the Beautiful. Besides, everyone knows that the Forresters live in Beverly Hills. Mandsford (talk) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete God help us if this were to catch on. As Mandsford noted, there could be hundreds of articles: Los Angeles, California (Sunset Bouleverd); Los Angeles, California (LA Story); Los Angeles, California (Dragnet); the mind reels. --MelanieN (talk) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Most of what is content are character details, already adequately covered in other articles. Otherwise, the fictional elements added to the real Los Angeles do not appear to have any encyclopedic significance. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:59, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable band fronted by a non-notable actress. Has received some airplay, but no indication that any of their songs has been "placed in rotation nationally by any major radio network". Similarly, no indication of any media coverage of substance. Fails WP:BAND. TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —TheJazzDalek (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage found.--Michig (talk) 20:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No significant coverage, no chart history. Fails WP:MUSICBIO Niteshift36 (talk) 01:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see the related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Do or Die EP Niteshift36 (talk) 01:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alan - talk 04:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this band. Joe Chill (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 19:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete concur, nothing on Google News and no reliable secondary sources on Google web search. CTJF83 chat 20:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no sources no article. 16x9 (talk) 04:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. Only one in-depth article here on InstantMessagingPlanet.com. Passing mentions [3] rediff, [4] a book. I wasn't able to find a source to verify the claim that it was the first IM to encrypt traffic. Pcap ping 06:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Notability seems to hang on whether it was the first IM to encrypt traffic. I haven't found a source verifying that. Pcap's notes (above) seem to establish its existence as of 2002. Potential starting points for further research on enterprise IM (in case someone wants to try harder to source the "first" claim):

On enterprise IM:

J. Rittinghouse and J. Ransome, Instant Messaging Security, Elsevier Digital Press, 2005. paywall, online copy from Elsevier book description

This is available for limited preview on google books. It makes no mention of SCIM, but it discusses only open standards, and no proprietary products. Pcap ping 21:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On public IM:

M. Mannan and P. C. van Oorschot. Secure public Instant Messaging: A survey. In Proceedings of the 2nd Annual Conference on Privacy, Security and Trust (PST’04), pages 69–77, Fredericton, NB, Canada, Oct. 2004. [5].

No mention here either, and this paper does cover some more obscure products like IMSecure and iGo Incognito. Pcap ping 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe the folks who write Off-the-Record Messaging would know more about the history. Jodi.a.schneider (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment being the 'first' shouldn't be the hinge in many cases to say it is notable. Next thing will have first this first that articles. 16x9 (talk) 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on what the "first" is about. Encrypting network traffic was not at all novel when this product came about. SSL libraries, like SSLeay, the precursor to OpenSSL, were already available, so it wasn't even a lot coding. So, even if this was the first encrypting IM, it doesn't add a lot to notability in my view. Pcap ping 21:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this article is only a couple of sentences, so if someone can come up with more convincing sources, it's not much work to recreate it. Pcap ping 21:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I see two possible claims of meeting WP:BIO here. First, the ACEP award. A google search only comes up with this award on Wikipedia, Durlacher's own site, and three bios probably posted by him. The other claim would be the book. Google news search comes up with only a single mention, despite the claims of being featured numerous times; web search also doesn't turn up notability. The publisher is owned by James Durlacher[6], and the book is in exactly 3 libraries in the US. Previous prod contested by article creator without comment. Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 19:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:N. The only media coverage I can find about this subject is his 1985 conviction for failing to file his income tax[7]. This article was created by a WP:SPA and smells suspiciously of self-promotion. Pburka (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per self-promotion and lack of WP:GNG notability. LotLE×talk 19:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's a legitimate debate about whether the available sources on NH are significant enough to establish his notability. As such I do not see a consensus for deletion, thus the article is kept by default. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:10, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Non-notable musician with only mixtapes to his credit. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources, but there was a profile in MTV.com's Mixtape Daily. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The MTV article is fine as a source, and there's also: this from XXL, this from XXL, this from SixShot.com, he's one of the headliners in the COOL Concert for Haiti and appears on the charity remake of "We are the World"[8][9], there's a Village Voice (staff blog) interview, there's this from Urban Network, this from HipHopDX. I think there's enough for the article to be kept and improved.--Michig (talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe SixShot, AmericanSuperstarMag, Urban Network, and HipHopDX are reliable sources, since they don't appear to be notable as either publications or websites. It's absurd to think that The Village Voice would identify a staff writer or editor as "Village Voice contributor" instead of giving him or her a by-line. The Source and AllHipHop merely name Nipsey Hussle in describing the "We Are The World" remake, and Nymag mocks him. The subject of the first XXL story is Dr. Dre, not Hustle, with Hussle eulogizing Dr. Dre. The subject of the second story (which produced the quote that amused NY Mag) is the "We Are The World" remake, again not Hussle. Nipsey Hussle isn't the subject of any of these stories. He's the reporter. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The 2 XXL articles are significant coverage of Nipsey Hussle. HipHopDX is a reliable source, as I believe is SixShot.com. Add these to the MTV article and we have WP:BAND criterion 1 satisfied.--Michig (talk) 07:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Just not notable. Hipocrite (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A non-notable guy who has produced nothing notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 2 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullets Ain't Got No Name, Vol. 1. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Alan - talk 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per Michig. Coverage by numerous MTV articles, headlining significant events and Billboard has a dedicated (albeit anemic) page about him alone. Toddst1 (talk) 16:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Headlining significant events? Or appearing at them? The Billboard page isn't anemic, it's pretty much empty. Release an album and no matter how non-notable it is, they'll probably put one up for you too on the off chance that you might become notable one day. Considering that Billboard accepts bio entries from the artist/label, the fact that they haven't even bothered to fill that out is telling. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Niteshift36, has not yet attained notability per music guidelines. RFerreira (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See this article, http://www.allhiphop.com/stories/news/archive/2010/01/17/22099143.aspx , which is reproduced in part on the Orange County Register at http://topics.ocregister.com/article/05mS1X393jb4x - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. In reply to Yappy2bhere, many newspapers and magazines are reliable sources without themselves being notable. – Eastmain (talk • contribs) 02:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, simply telling us he's going to be in a concert doesn't sound all that significant. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 15:38, 6 February 2010 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Ordilyo" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ordilyo) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

WP:NFT. PROD contested. Electrified Fooling Machine (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. WP:NEO. WP:N. WP:MADEUP. Pburka (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Wikipedia is WP:NOTADICTIONARY and is, of course, WP:MADEUP. ConCompS talk 19:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Issue: Proposed Deletion of Silentlambs Article.
Reason: Article is Biased, slanted, POV in favor of SL

This article has been since I first saw it biased, POV and Anti-JW and has not been updated with any other info to balance it out. 2 citations are from the SL site itself(biased, anti-JW) and one AP article(which I believe leans toward SL even though it tried[weakly] to appear neutral). Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Andy5421 (talk) 09:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per reason above and previous comments at article's Talk page. The handling of JW child sex abuse cases is dealt with at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; that article could briefly mention the SilentLambs organization.--Jeffro77 (talk) 14:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See last response to Yappy2bhere below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:52, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Natural (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with the above statements by Jeffro77--Natural (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—what counts is whether readers can verify that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. (WP:V). So your job as editors is not to claim the article has 'false claims', but to ensure there are published references supporting the statements. In addition, the article is not "about a web site", but about an organization that protects children. The article is not claiming that child abuse is "more prevalent than in other religions", so don't create false charges. Finally, i want to bring to your attention that user "Naturalpsychology" is a single-purpose user, who openly states that he is dedicated counteract articles critical of Jehovah's Witnesses. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So find a "reliable source".--Jeffro77 (talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This organization also seems to fail Wikipedia's guidelines for notability.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I already added 10 additional references. Besides, Silentlambs was featured in several TV programs around the world, such as:

• USA/ NBC Dateline
• CNN/Connie Chung
• UK BBC/Panorama-Suffer The Little Children
• Australia/Sunday Program-Silent Witnesses
• German Program/WDR-The End of Silence
• Denmark Program/DTV2-Silent Children
• German Program-Protecting the Perpetrator Comes First
• Slovenia Program-POPTV,
• plus several TV news stories/reports. You can access all of the above documentaries here. BatteryIncluded --BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some of those references are from the SilentLambs site itself - these are not reliable secondary sources. Some of the references don't even mention SilentLambs or make passing mention of it, but are not about the SilentLambs organization. The point here is not whether the JW handling of sex abuse cases is a notable issue (which is covered elsewhere as stated above), but whether SilentLambs is notable enough to warrant its own article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 17:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous. Two of eleven references are from the SilentLambs site. The three BBC articles don't discuss the organization but link to it as a resource. Evidently SilentLambs is as notable as the scandal, and as you point out, the scandal satisfies WP:Notability guidelines. Yappy2bhere (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the scandal does satisfy notability guidelines. That is why it has its own article Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. The Notability guideline states that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material". It is the scandal that is the subject of media attention. SilentLambs being credited as a resource in those articles does not satisfy notability of the organisation.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Google news reveals dozens of reliable sources for this subject[10], for example this 2002 article in Wired: [11] and this one in The New York Times[12]. Pburka (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The searching by Pburka is convincing. The organization has received widespread, national coverage. If someone were to add all those additional links to the page, it would become instantly, obviously verified and notable. If some people (like the nominator) feel the article is not neutral in its tone, that can be fixed by editing, but we can't suppress all mention of a verified, notable organization just because we don't like its viewpoint. And "being biased" is not one of the reasons for deletion. Per WP:DEL, "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion." BTW any editing which is introduced for balance has to be properly sourced. Argument, personal opinion, blog comments, etc. are not adequate sourcing and not acceptable as content. --MelanieN (talk) 22:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

SilentLambs received a spate of media attention from late 2002 to early 2003 as the story was distributed between media outlets. The scandal of JW handling of abuse is indeed important, and it has its own article - Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003- Jeffro

Now you changed your argument that that it was notable, but it is no more? You have failed repeatedly to substanciate your oposition and you keep changing your arguments when proven wrong ...your swings are giving me wiplash. Just be proactive and say what is your real motive against this article. --BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My argument has not changed. The issue of JW handling of abuse cases is notable, and SilentLambs was mentioned in relation to those cases, with a flurry of media attention in 2002-3. I have already indicated other issues with disingenuous reporting on the SilentLambs website, with links for examples provided below.--Jeffro77 (talk) 13:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No valid reason to delete. Subject is notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Article is not biased. Article is objective. The purpose of the article is to discuss clergy's attempts to silence abuse victims. As we would expect, the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims. • rebel8 (talk) 20:51, 6 February 2010

The claim that "the person who propses this article be deleted is attempting to silence abuse victims" is a plain violation of WP:AGF and a disingenuous appeal to sentiment. The subject of JW handling of abuse is indeed notable, and is covered at Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse. A summary of SilentLambs there would be sufficient.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the argument that this page should be deleted and merged into the other page. This page is not about Jehovah's Witnesses and child sex abuse; it's about a notable, verified ORGANIZATION - one which has JWs and sex abuse as its mission. Would you suggest deleting the Cancer Society article because there is already an article about cancer? Would you propose merging the ACLU page into an article about civil liberties? Should all church articles be merged into the general topic Christianity? The organization itself is what is notable, and it's what the page is about. It's not just a second page about the same subject. --MelanieN (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The organization had a spate of media attention in 2002-2003, and brief mentions in the media since, which have achieved some good in drawing attention to the JW's policies. However the primary activities of the organization appear to be sensationalist in nature, such as implying that the number of pedophiles among JWs is a higher proportion to the rest of society, or reporting stories of abusers as JWs, sometimes with no evidence that the offenders were even JWs other than anonymous hearsay (e.g. http://www.silentlambs.org/cancino.htm), inappropriately comparing the number of JW abusers generally with abusers among clergy in other religions (http://www.silentlambs.org/answers/23720.cfm), or implying that abuse and murder is particularly common among JWs (e.g. Link on site's home page: "Another JW Father Murders Children?"). Wikipedia should not encourage sensationalism. When the sensationalism is removed, there is not a great deal of actual content to present about the organization, and for that reason the important information should be merged into the other article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The analogy about the Cancer Society is poor. A more accurate analogy would be an article about a website that makes sensationalist claims about some specific organization causing cancer.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't really matter for purposes of this discussion whether the organization's activities are sensationalistic, or whether it has done any good or continues to do so, or whether it has misrepresented the facts in the past or continues to do so, or whether it has implied what it cannot prove. Those are all important aspects of the organization which should be included in the article so far as they can be supported with reliable sources, but they are irrelevant to deciding whether an article on the organization is a significant addition to WP. The standard for inclusion is significant coverage in reliable sources. It is not the moral or ethical fiber of the subject, nor its utility to its cause, nor the potential good to society of shunning the subject. Yappy2bhere (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can accept that, and since there is fairly broad consensus to Keep, it hardly matters. The article has improved since the AfD was raised, and I will keep watch on it to prevent sensationalism from taking over the article.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MelanieN, merging a small group into a larger one is an established policy tactic for managing dissent. The smaller group is easily marginalized once it's been absorbed by equating the importance of its interests relative to those of the overall group with its relatively small membership within the group. In this instance, merging this article with the other would permit additional detail about the organization to be excluded on the grounds that it contributes little to the overall merged article. By preventing the topic from expanding while paring away, say, biased content, the topic can be reduced to an offhand remark within the larger article. (Public policy 101 - in my town we play politics without pads, Bubba.) Yappy2bhere (talk) 01:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Yappy, I realize that would be the effect of "merging" the article: to minimize or blunt the message. But aside from suppressing the viewpoint, the "merge" suggestion makes no sense from a Wikipedia standpoint. The organization is notable in itself, as established by normal Wikipedia criteria. It is not simply synonymous with its cause. --MelanieN (talk) 15:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Article has been rewritten since AfD nomination, a rebuttal from the Watch Tower Society added and sufficient citations of sources to confirm notability also supplied. LTSally (talk) 11:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are now enough secondary sources to show notability. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge/redirect to List of people from Akron, Ohio. This seems to me the best interpretation of the consensus of the discussion, given that strong arguments are made by a number of editors for either outright deletion (i.e. this list should not exist, which will now eventually be the case) or merging, and at least one of those supporting keeping the list are okay with merging as a second option. It's unclear to me if there is actually information in this list that needs to be merged into List of people from Akron, Ohio, but if so that should happen soon and then List of Akron politicians should redirected to that page (because we need to retain the edit history of the page if anything is to be merged, not because its a useful redirect per say). If no merging has happened in a week or so I'll probably pop back and simply re-direct the page—the edit history would still be preserved if someone wanted to merge any pertinent info later. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:31, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Akron politicians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

The list is simply duplicate information as a sub-list of List of people from Akron, Ohio. JonRidinger (talk) 20:52, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Agreed, and it invites even less notable people than the List of people from Akron, Ohio as there are almost 200 years of politicians from Akron. --Beirne (talk) 21:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Absolutely no reason for a seperate article. Keep as a section under list of people from Akron, Ohio Nefariousski (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Includes formers, this would be a list to keep up to. Also, Wikipedia is not a Directory WP:NOTDIR. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 21:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep List of people from Cleveland and List of Cleveland politicians both exist, and maybe other cities who does this as well. A seperate list lets you find encyclopedic information about Akron politicians faster under that sort of list than in the larger List of people from Akron, Ohio which wouldnt have a proper place under the Government and Politics section, as in the featured article Cleveland--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Threeblur0 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I'd recommend you read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It states and I'll quote "That other similar articles exist is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions and will typically be dismissed while still assuming good faith. " each issue needs to be debated on its own merits. Nefariousski (talk) 23:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT I dont mean to use it as an example that way, i was just bringing lite to the fact that it is commonly used with good reasons. Also this data isnt on the List of people from Akron, Ohio article, thus isnt a duplicate as stated above.--Threeblur0 (talk) 23:42, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So can you explain exactly why it's a good idea to split one type of "people from Akron" out of the "people from Akron" article to form a new article? What's the benefit? Nefariousski (talk) 18:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I stated at the article's talk page, the table at List of people from Akron, Ohio is sortable, so a column with a specific category could be included as a way to group them together (if someone really is looking for notable politicians from Akron) or it can simply be broken into subsections. No need for a separate list, especially in looking at the length of this list; hardly that long. Simply using other city article groups (particularly of cities that are older and larger) doesn't work. Additionally, the Akron list itself needs edited as it includes people from the Akron metro area and not just those from the city of Akron, so even less reason to spin off a separate list. --JonRidinger (talk) 02:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment As I stated, the List of people from Akron, Ohio would not properly fit under the section. Also as you just stated, the Akron list has problems, so a seperate list with no problems seems good, plus the list is unfinished as i found roughly six more politicans, also some are listed on the people from Akron list. Im not simply stating the fact, im giving good reason.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are already problems with this list as it is. No one on the list is notable for people outside of the Akron area, and many of them are not even notable for Akronites. Creating a second list with issues does not improve Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 14:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment First, if something or someone has an article, that has been present over a long length of time and no reason has been found to delete it, it is notable regaurdless of what you say/think. Second, United States House of Representatives, U.S. Senate, United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, U.S. Ambassador, etc., are notable for people outside of the Akron area.--Threeblur0 (talk) 15:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only editor not in favor of deletion is the creator of the list. If the additional names you have found are indeed notable, place them in in the List of people from Akron, Ohio in a subsection for politicians. Akron's list is hardly anything abnormally large. Also, the presence of a Wikipedia article is no guarantee of notability, especially if the article has few or no sources. In many cases, it may have just been overlooked because it has few articles that link to it. That seems to be another case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. --JonRidinger (talk) 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The only editors in favor are two editors(one of which who started the deletion attempt) who have past "problems" with my edits, and another editor who may have changed his mind. I will place them on the politician page, where they belong, when i finish fully searching and typing the information. Nor are others', so it corresponds. Well since you have time to participate in this, could you mark which(if any) are non-notable? No it is a case of that it is common and makes senses to have.--Threeblur0 (talk) 18:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. None of them are notable outside of Akron, and in Akron John Seiberling and maybe Tom Sawyer. Both of whom fit fine on the list of people from Akron. And four people voted to delete, not three, and I don't see anyone switching their vote. --Beirne (talk) 18:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And just because someone is a judge, congressman, etc. from Akron does not make them notable. Someone has to fill those positions and it just happens to be them. The number of notable ones will fit fine in the list of people from Akron. In fact, having a separate list can make it more difficult for someone to find the people, as they may not know to go to the politicians list, whereas the list of people from Akron is something to be expected. --Beirne (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK. It's ridiculous to say an Ambassador and etc. is not notable outside of Akron, and to take you seriously anymore. My mis-count came from only looking at the number of 'deletes' which two are from editors who havent commented much to see if there perspective changed. I will add a "save" tag to the page. Wow. As of now, all are deemed notable. In fact, having a separate list can make it more easy to for someone to find the people, as they are completely seperate from all others, whereas the politician list is something to be expected.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you're right about the ambassador, but thousands of people have been ambassadors and most have sunk into obscurity, so they aren't notable just because they held the job. If you think the ambassador on the list is noteworthy then make a case for him rather than insulting me. --Beirne (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply: First, I want to note that we do have a policy on Wikipedia which says "Comment on the Content, not the contributor. Any personal attacks need to stop here and now. Also by violating that, you are violating the orange pillar of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia. As for my vote, do not assume it is has changed. I don't see anything that isn't already in the articles by those people. As above, Wikipedia is not a directory. This supports a directory of politicians in a certain area. Also, are we to have a list of one politician who does meet the notability requirement? I think the answer is Black & White here. My vote is still in support of deletion. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, then delete - All the people on this list are (or should be) on List of people from Akron, Ohio. I don't see why another list is necessary. Merge any useful information from here into there, and then delete. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think its easier to find what you are looking for this way. If someone wants to know who all the notable politicians are from there, this is easier to find than on that other list. Additional information could be added, listing the years they were in office. And there is no reason information can be found in two places, if someone believes any of these politicians should be put in the other list as well. Dream Focus 09:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The poor organization of one list or article shouldn't be the reason for creating a separate list or article. It should only be because the new list would overwhelm the main list, just like including the main list in the original article is too much. List of people from Akron, Ohio is by no means an unusually large list and could easily be organized in such a way to have categories either with subheadings or a column in a sortable chart. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have been trying to get that way of reasoning across. I apologize if my "state of disbelief over the seemingly false statements i read lead me to make a 'personal attack'", it's just that when statements like those come into play, it makes disscussions like this harder. Neither did i assume you changed your mind, i believed it was possible but never used words to confirm you did. Also, the list is longer than the Cleveland politician's article, which contains people who does/did similar roles as people on the Akron list. Since the Cleveland list seems to some how pass as notable/needed, maybe we should base it off that list.

• Comment Again, the presence of the Cleveland politicians list is largely irrelevant unless it has survived its own deletion debate. Its existence does not mean it should exist or that this list should exist. No one but you has mentioned it as an example or standard and it is not a featured list like Cleveland was a featured article. Bear in mind, however, that List of people from Cleveland is a significantly longer list than Akron and has organizational and other problems of its own. In all honesty, I think the Cleveland politicians list could be integrated into the main list better and really isn't needed, but that is for a different debate. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of addtional politicians i found. List among them are, ambassadors, delegates, persons who played important roles is forming states (Monatana) etc. (people notable far past just the Akron area) Ellsworth Raymond Bathrick Sidney Edgerton Charles Landon Knight William Hanes Ayres Sandi Jackson Gilbert De La Matyr John Dean Walter B. Huber M. Herbert Hoover Dow W. Harter Henry Augustus Buchtel Mike Massie Thomas E. Martin Frances McGovern Ray C. Bliss Chuck Blasdel Robert Lucas (candidate) Leonard Firestone Kim Zurz William H. Upson Wilbur F. Sanders Francis Seiberling --Threeblur0 (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Really the debate isn't whether there are notable politicians from Akron, it's whether we need a separate list from List of people from Akron, Ohio. --JonRidinger (talk) 18:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because just like Cleveland's (a well done featured article) and other city articles, it helps bring a knowledge of a certain topic (Government and politics) together, oppose to a not so specific or even fitting list (List of people from Akron, Ohio) to the topic, being put.--Threeblur0 (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Only the article Cleveland is currently classified as a featured article. Lists and articles attached to it should never be assumed to be "featured" or even "good" just because the parent article is featured. Every article is classified and evaluated on an individual basis, not as a group. The main Akron list can easily be organized to bring more specific information and divide it up, just like the Cleveland list can. And no, not all city article groups have separate main and sub lists; most have one main list if they have a separate list from the main article at all. --JonRidinger (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment... Again My thoughts on this matter still stand as Delete. There is absolutely no reason to have a seperate article for politicians apart from the standard List of notable people from Akron. Firstly, Akron isn't a large enough city to warrant seperate articles on the basis of one single article being too massive to be readable. The "Well Cleveland has one" point is totally moot per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Comparing Clevelands featured article to the Politicians of Akron spinoff article is apples and oranges. There's absolutely no justifiable reason to not include the information in the People from Akron article aside from the personal preference of the editors. Nefariousski (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If all the people Threeblur0 found are added to the list, it won't fit in a merge. If it was that full already, it'd be split out to a side article here. Dream Focus 18:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but many of the people in the list of politicians aren't notable. Not every judge or state rep are worth putting in the list. That shrinks it a lot. Part of my concern with this list is that it will become a big unfiltered list of politicians. --Beirne (talk) 18:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are pretty small and completely unorganized into sections. There's no reasonable "The article would be too big" argument to be made here. If you categorized all list type articles by length even the merged version containing all the politicians would be well into the bottom half of that list. Nefariousski (talk) 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Scott Mac (Doc) 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The list is clearly of value in navigating to our numerous articles of the relevant type. The organisation of this with respect to other similar lists is not a matter for deletion as that can and should be resolved by ordinary editing. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but reference. As a valid fork of List of people from Akron, Ohio, I see no way that this list violates any of our poilicies or guidelines. It needs references for every listing that show that these people were born in or lived in Akron, but that it a matter of editing, not notability. As was stated above in a Delete comment, there are 200 years worth of politicians from Akron. Most likely every mayor is notable, as is every member of the state legislature, US House, and US Senate, as well as stste and federal cabinet officials, plus others. Each of those people would qualify for their own articles, as well as in this list. If it is not kept, then it should be merged back into List of people from Akron, Ohio. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 22:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment My position hasn't changed in regards to deletion or at least merging any info that isn't already at the List of people from Akron, Ohio (much of it already is there, which is what prompted my original nomination). My understanding of list articles is that they should be created when a list within an article (or another list) becomes excessively long and this list is nowhere near being too long for the main list. The List of people from Akron, Ohio is what needs additional editing and categorization, not spinning off another list, at least yet. And speculating that there may be a need for the list in the future does not mean a separate list is needed now. Again, the question isn't whether there are notable politicians from Akron or not, but if a separate list is needed. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete wp:OCAT - in particular, see Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location. Why should this afd turn out differently than Roman Catholic Bishops from Ohio? Keep it merged with List of people from Akron, Ohio. ErikHaugen (talk) 19:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into List of people from Akron, Ohio. There is no need for separate list of Akron politicians at this stage.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Gidonb (talk • contribs)
• Merge into List of people from Akron, Ohio. We don't need separate articles for every subcategory of notability, particularly for small and medium-sized cities. PDCook (talk) 02:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 23:22, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete. There are zero matches on Google News Archives by this name. It is completely possible that sources might be available in another language, which is fine if they can be found. I have been unsuccessful in my attempts to locate non-trivial coverage of this individual from reliable third party publications. JBsupreme (talk) 05:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No indication of notability other than the subject's own website. --DAJF (talk) 10:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DAJF, various interviews and other sources have been provided. None of them makes just a "passing reference" as you claim, feel free to read them before commenting on notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 12:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC) — 77.49.64.161 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep and expand. Yamashita is notable as the original composer responsible for the musical style of the Castlevania series. She has composed music for several very popular games and is one of the most well-known composers in the video game music scene, in fact the whole scene growth and popularity owes a lot to her work in the first Castlevania game. There are numerous interviews of her in english, some included as links in the article, and loads of videos of her in performances of her music, as a performer or an honored guest. Even NME.com has a page for her. "No indication of notability"? I'll take that as ignorance in good faith. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.103.110.76 (talk) 18:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As per IP address; the composer is notable and has been interviewed several times. The article is easily sourceable. The Prince (talk) 11:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I would hate to delete an article that can be confirmed by Reliable Sources, and considering no one has offered up any that I can see, I would ask you to provide some in evidence that it should be kept. Joshua Scott (talk) 00:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have received permission from Kinuyo Yamashita herself to keep this article up. There are sources in place, and every interview with her is credible. She is the composer for the Castlevania series (known as Akumajou Dracula in Japan). She has even confirmed to me that what is in the article is entirely true. You can't get more proof than that! DJ15Nario (talk) 21:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've "received permission"? How do you expect to influence this process with such a comment? Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kinuyo Yamashita has a Facebook account (I know she's for real too because two personal friends of mine met her in real life and she said she'd send them friend requests) and she informed me of this situation through a status update. She was confused as to why this article would be deleted, considering how all the information on the page is true, and she has been thankful in my attempts to keep this article from being deleted. I don't know if the "fiance" below me is for real, but I do know that OSV is a reliable source (one of the personal friends mentioned above is the one who interviewed Yamashita; in fact, it's AkumuHau below) and that I'm telling the truth. That's your proof.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's irrelevant if thats true or if the subject of the article has a personal interest in it (and if anything might harm the discussion). You've certainly brought to the table reasons why this discussion has issues of conflict of interest.

Interest has nothing to do with this. The fact of the matter is that Kinuyo Yamashita is an influential composer and she has credible sources to back her up on Wikipedia, and yet people want to bring her down in claiming that the sources aren't credible, that she isn't important, and that she shouldn't be remembered on Wikipedia. It's unreal, and she deserves better.DJ17Nario (talk) 13:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am Kinuyo's fiance and I translated the bio from Japanese to English with her help. The information is all sourced from her personal page and to a variety of interviews in English that verify this information. OSV is an independent website that has interviewed her with the link at the bottom of the page. Her credibility can be found on numerous websites including Myspace, Youtube and LinkedIn. NJDolphin —Preceding undated comment added 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC). — NJDolphin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Well thats a conflict of interest even if true (somehow I'm not convinced). Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —DAJF (talk) 23:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NRVE. Article has existed for four years and no verifiable third-party sources have ever been added. Recommend that someone copy it to their userspace and improve it before attempting to add it again. -armagebedar (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Kinuyo Yamashita is one of the most famous video game composers of her day and you can find countless interviews to back that up. Tommy Tallarico's Video Games Live concert recently had her appear as a special guest at their Tokyo event to do a speech for the crowd, as can be seen on Youtube.--AkumuHau (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing out the YouTube videos of Video Games Live, Akumu. I forgot about mentioning those, but it's proof that she is an influential composer if she was brought up by Tommy Tallarico himself. The crowd treated her with a healthy applause and she also gave an inspirational speech too.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I came here to say keep, but this interview is the only thing I can find that comes close to a secondary source on this. This is not a reliable source in my opinion, and so this article cannot be notable, given the lack of reliabile sources. Joshua Scott (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OSV is definitely a reliable source. In fact, AkumuHau--the user above your post--is the one who interviewed Kinuyo Yamashita.DJ17Nario (talk) 11:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That someone who interviewed the subject of the article is claiming the article should be kept based on his own interview isn't helping as much as you think.

Comment I have to say, there are some suspect replies here. Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can understand why this was relisted, because there were a lot of !votes for both Keep and Delete. However, per Wikipedia:NOTVOTE#Deletion.2C_moving_and_featuring, consensus should be used to determine the outcome, rather than numbers of votes. None of the 5 keep comments gave any links, or ways to find WP:RS. This seems to be a pretty straightforward delete, IMHO, especially considering that it is a BLP. Joshua Scott (talk) 19:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Two credible sources have been added since the threatening of this article's deletion. Those who wanted the article deleted wanted more sources, and there they are. DJ17Nario (talk) 15:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) [reply]

Could you please point those out here? If credible sources have been added, I'm happy to change my position. Here's the breakdown of the current references:

• subject's website - the subject's own words can't be used to establish notability.
• mobygames.com - passing mention, doesn't establish notability. This site is similar to IMDB, in that it doesn't have strict oversight on editors, so it cannot be used as a reliable source anyway.
• ready-up.net - this is a blog, so it cannot be used as a reliable source.
• 1up.com - this is also a blog.

Please let me know if I am wrong on these, but I don't see anything establishing notability. Thanks, Joshua Scott (talk) 21:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1UP.com is actually on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources, I believe because of their editorial control and use of established vg journalists. Can't speak for the other sources, however. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also, MobyGames is on the list for "production credits" only, which is how it's used. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. I'm still not sure if the notability standard is being met here, but I'm striking my comment about 1up.com. Joshua Scott (talk) 05:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment Josh, these websites aren't blogs, they are long standing and well recognised game journalism websites using a blog format. I agree that the subject's website can't be used as source for an article, except maybe a few personal info tidbits. One question though, how can a musical score be notable enough to have multiple entries and mentions in wikipedia, and yet the composer is deemed not notable? Yamashita is even listed under "notable composers" - which she should, since she started the whole thing, and sources to verify that have already been provided.
  • You can't just arbitrarily claim that a source doesn't establish notability nor say that it is a "passing mention"; that's how works are attributed to their creators, by name only. For example, if i tell you that "Avatar is directed by James Cameron", you can't say that i made only a passing reference to Cameron, therefore he is insignificant; that is simply the way creators are cited. For more information you need to seek an article on the creator. In this case, Kinuyo Yamashita is the creator of a an extremely well known and important body of work in the genre, already established beyond any doubt as significant by wikipedia itself, the music of Castlevania. Therefore the article needs expansion, not deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 01:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you feel strongly about this, but Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and reliable sources are fairly clear. See WP:BLP, especially Wikipedia:BLPSPS and Wikipedia:ONEEVENT. James Cameron has articles written largely about him, see for example [13], whereas I don't see those sorts of writeups about Kinuyo Yamashita. Again, I am happy to reverse my stance, just point out where those articles are that I'm missing. Joshua Scott (talk) 02:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I also do not understand the discounting of the 1up.com source due to the fact that it chooses to attach the name "blog" to that one particular set of news items. The Retronauts section of 1up is host to tons of news pertaining to classic gaming, but may not necessarily fit in with the standard "news" section of 1up.com, as it is more of a special interest topic. The entry is not a personal blog, has a few designated contributors, and I feel that the particular 1up retronauts post in question being written by one of the top ranking staff members of 1up.com should help validate the entry. Regarding your comment about not seeing large articles pertaining to Kinuyo Yamashita (in the james cameron comparison), I think this relates to the comments I've made further down in debate page about pseudonyms. Until recently, many classic video game composers have only been known by their pseudonyms, which are often brushed off and assumed to mean a team of people, or the pseudonyms are so obtuse (i.e. james banana), that people only remember the musical works and not the names behind them. For this reason, the names of these classic gaming composers are just as of recently starting to be recognized, even though their music has always been appreciated. Because of this, I may not be able to show you many articles about yamashita, herself, but I could easily show you a tons of articles on the music she has written. Kinuyo Yamashita, and other classic composers just like her, are just now finally being recognized for their work, so sources that explicitly mention them by name are just now starting the pop up. The most notable of sources pertaining to yamashita have basically all been pointed out in this discussion, but I'm sure more are soon to follow. --NickTheNewbie (talk) 19:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I did reverse my position on the 1up.com article (see above). Joshua Scott (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As a music composer, we should be looking to WP:MUSICBIO for guidance. Someone who writes for video games doesn't fall easily into any of the criteria, but I looked through the whole guideline to see if there are any criteria which she may meet, and it's just not there. The lack of WP:RS and significant coverage in secondary sources doesn't help her cause either. Wine Guy~Talk 10:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am sorry, but did you really look at them? At least on the the criteria must apply, and for Kinuyo Yamashita we have more than one:
    • Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition (Castlevania and dozens of scores after that).
    • Has had a work used as the basis for a later composition by a songwriter, composer or lyricist who meets the above criteria (her style defined the music of the Castlevania series for years).
    • Has been listed as a major influence or teacher of a composer, songwriter or lyricist that meets the above criteria (either this or the criterion above, works by composers influenced by Yamashita became popular and significant within the genre in their own right).
    • Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music (there are still few "standard reference" works for video game music, but the music of Castlevania is almost always referenced).
  • I understand that video game music is a really obscure genre and many people just refuse to take it seriously, but it is notable on its own right, in full compliance with wikipedia criteria for notability, and Kinuyo Yamashita is one of the most influential composers within that genre, and within that genre she satisfies the criteria posted above. No, you won't ever see her on MTV.
  • What we have here is a notable music composer, but with few (more than adequate IMHO) sources to cite in the article. This does not negate a person's notability; it means that the biographical article should be expande, not deleted. I fully agree that in its current state it is lacking. Maybe what we need here is someone who speaks japanese and can provide references from sources published in Japan.
  • I am writing this in good faith, and under the understandment that the subject's notability in general has been established beyond any doubt. Notability in accordance to wikipedia criteria, has also been established, as above. It has also been established in other wikipedia articles, such as Castlevania, Castlevania (video game), and Music in the Castlevania series, with references, and linked to in many more. Michiru Yamane's entry (she is the composer who defined Castlevania's musical style from Symphony of the Night onwards) is no more informative, less cited, and yet doing fine.
  • For all the reasons mentioned above, and according to wikipedia's policies, i strongly support rewriting and expanding the article and not deleting it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.64.161 (talk) 12:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As stated above the relisting, the article has more than enough credible sources to be kept, although it would be best to expand it for safe measure.—Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC) — Duplicate !vote: DJ15Nario (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.[reply]
  • Kinuyo Yamashita defined the environment of Castlevania, for her music within the series is very memorable and makes up a good portion of memories of gamers when the Nintendo Entertainment System Castlevania titles are brought up. In short: bringing up Castlevania for the NES cannot be done without bringing up the music in the titles as well, for the music in the series is so good and go hand in hand with the series. If this article is deleted, then every Castlevania article on Wikipedia might as well be deleted too, for Castlevania wouldn't be what it is today without Kinuyo Yamashita, for she is an important and influential factor in the series. DJ15Nario (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• (Edit conflict, replying to comment by 77.49.64.161)Thanks for your comment. I don't question your good faith, and I am familiar with some extraordinary, notable work in the VG music genre; I just don't see that Yamashita is "one of the most influential composers within that genre". Having looked through the links you provided, and their sources, it appears quite clear to me that Michiru Yamane is the composer of note for the Castlevania series, not Kinuyo Yamashita. I see no evidence anywhere which would support the assertion that Yamashita's work on the score of the original game influenced the music created by Yamane, which has become notable. The sources for the Yamashita article also bring her notability into question; like this one "Yamashita, composer of the original Castlevania... as well as the odd classic (Parodius, anyone?)", and this blog, used as a source for Yamashita, mentions that she is present with Yamane, but goes on to say "Yamane is pretty well known at this point;" no such assertion is made about Yamashita. Not exactly ringing endorsements. Wine Guy~Talk 20:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I find it puzzling how you can assert that Yamane is the composer of note in the Castlevania series, yet Yamashita, whose work the whole series was based upon - a sufficient criterion for notability according to the list that you yourself linked above - isn't. You also didn't debunk this or the other criteria that i commented upon, so where do we stand? Lack of evidence suitable for use in wikipedia does not mean lack of evidence at all - wikipedia is not the real world! Once again i am trying to explain, there is no question of notability "in real life" here. Everyone familiar with the genre is aware of her notability. So the article has a place in wikipedia - that much we have established. The issue is making it a proper entry. The information in Yamane's entry is actually less backed up by citations and references than the current version of this article, yet in her case her IRL established notability seems enough to back that article up. Lack of sources seems to have become a problem for Yamashita's entry, so clearly expansion is needed. If every article that failed to satisfy everyone's evaluation of the provided references was deleted on the spot, wikipedia would be left with a thousand articles give or take a few :).
• I have to point out some flawed reasoning as well; her work in lesser-known games does not negate her work on Castlevania, nor does the article's mentioning that Yamane is pretty well known negate the fact that Yamashita is well known too. If anything, her reputation is not commented upon because it is taken for granted - again i must stress, within the genre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.207.35 (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Though michiru yamane has picked up doing the majority of castlevania composition since castlevania bloodlines, yamashita was solely responsible for establishing most of the main themes in the series through her work on the first game. Her use of a pseudonym (like many other composers of the nintendo era) makes it hard to track down her work based on her name alone, but looking around, I can find some more sources that support this "James Banana" handle she was credited with in castlevania 1.

• http://www.mobygames.com/developer/sheet/view/developerId,185632/ - not necessarily reliable, but does corroborate other sites
• http://vgmdb.net/artist/1270 - extensive video game music soundtrack database
• http://nesdev.parodius.com/authors.htm - list of NES era composers
• http://www.artofthemix.org/FindAMix/getcontents2.aspx?strMixID=120152 - Seems to be a "mix tape" of some sort. Helps corroborate at the very least
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5yjEgu4JcA - Though this video is from the subject's channel, it does show castlvania music being played at a video games live concert in japan, followed by the host of video games live bring yamashita on the stage to talk about her composition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NickTheNewbie (talk • contribs) 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• My apologies, I forgot to sign my entry. --NickTheNewbie (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that none of those sources would be considered as Reliable sources, and most of them can be edited by fans. I am still waiting to see even one reference source that provides more than trivial coverage of the subject of this article. --DAJF (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I had mentioned before, the use of pseudonyms makes things blurry, and puts several other composers into question. I mean when you look at composers such as Yuukichan's Papa and Bun Bun, it becomes apparent that this kind of situation is not uncommon, and that extensive research done by (very dedicated) fan sites is sometimes the only way to get the information needed. OCReMix is listed as a source for both yuukichan's papa and bun bun, and a similar article exists for Kinuyo Yamashita. The validity of Original Sound Version as a reliable source has been debated in this page, but it is probably one of the better sources of information on video game music around. The video game music community isn't exactly an exploding industry, so even the most in depth sites may appear to be fan sites at first glance. If it helps OSV's case for reliability any, the executive editor of the site is Dale North, who helps run the major news sites http://www.destructoid.com and http://www.japanator.com/ --NickTheNewbie (talk) 15:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The video game music community and industry is a very recent, still emerging phenomenon compared to music in general, and video game music as a subculture is extremely community-driven, almost exclusively by means of the internet. This creates the problem that nearly every available resource can be considered either Unreliable or Original Research. It also makes it virtually impossible to use Google to locate more traditional resources, if any, due to the ratio of scientific resources to fansited being practically zero. Things might be better when it comes to japanese websites, but unfortunately most of us in the west can't read japanese.

Maybe there should be a specific policy for video game music and other cultural niches in a similar situation. Compare for example the number of reliable source articles dedicated to Super Mario Bros versus the number of reliable resource articles dedicated to the - well popular and instantly recognizable - music from that game. When it comes to composers the problem becomes even worse, and even for the most popular superstar composers such as Nobuo Uematsu the vast majority of resources are fan-driven, original research, or in some other way unreliable. 79.103.102.249 (talk) 12:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Nihonjoe

Apparently some people here try to deal with disagreements by banning users. I am pretty sure that you know what Dynamic IP is and how it works. Just because some of my comments come from a different IP address, that makes me a sock puppet? How exactly did you arrive to the conclusion that i am DJ15Nario? I guess because he edits from the same country as me? Or maybe you just don't like an unregistered user voicing an opinion? More importantly, if you disagree with my opinion then maybe you should try discussing instead of banning me - just a suggestion really, i obviously can't enforce this. I guess wikipedia's behavioral guidelines can bend easily if you have admin powers though. Good job encouraging debates and contributions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.219.17.235 (talk) 23:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC) — 194.219.17.235 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not sure where you're coming from, but I have no disagreement with you other than you abusively posting under multiple real and fake accounts (as the DJ17Nario "account" is not even registered), as well as logging in under IPs to try to influence the discussion and appear to be more than one person. That's what you were block for, and that's why you've been blocked again (as you are obviously evading a block). Also, I have no idea which country DJ15Nario is posting from. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This all looks like an extremely under-handed way to pull favor for an article's deletion. I can't prove that Nario wasn't posting under multiple accounts before he used the DJ17 one (though I was under the impression that assuming multiple people who are of the same opinion to be sockpuppets was considered bad faith) - but banning AkumuHau as a sockpuppet of Nario's strikes me as particularly silly. Akumu is a Norwegian VG columnist (who writes for http://kngi.org/, good-evil.net, bossies.org and vgmdb.com), and Nario is an American musician and college student (ex. http://gamemusic4all.com/wordpress/2009/12/nario-most-of-me-debut-album/). This information is freely available online and took me no more than five minutes to research. Conversely, where is the proof that Nario was indulging in sockpuppetry before his first banning? People disagreed with Sephy (I see he considered some of the comments to be "suspect"), so they got flagged and banned without a second glance, and now every non-account IP address is assumed to be one of Nario's? This is either a misinformed witch hunt or a gross abuse of power. - Kirby (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

And your posting is somewhat suspicious, too. It's been almost five years since you did anything here, and your first action is to come to a deletion discussion and defend someone? It makes me think this is an old account belonging to Nario... ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Before we continue you need to read this: http://en.wikipedia.orghttps://demo.azizisearch.com/lite/wikipedia/page/Static_IP#Static_and_dynamic_IP_addresses Now, you are either paranoid or just an admin on a power trip. I am not a registered user and certainly not any of the ones mentioned above. DJ15 and DJ17, yes that looks suspicious, but what the hell does that have to do with me? Where exactly did i post "abusively"? I am trying to have a discussion, all i did is provide proper arguements and references for the article. I only cast ONE vote (which obviously doesn't matter anyway since "the merits of the arguements" is going to be judged by you) and contributed several comments. As for "evading a block" a) i am not doing it on purpose (read the article i linked), and b) it was a malicious block given without any reason, warning or discussion, so i might as well.

A bit of a rant while we are at it, this kind of treatment of unregistered users is exactly why i don't want to register despite having contributed to several articles and made countless minor corrections and improvements. Presumed guilty before even being talked to, and sure, because another random guy comes to my defense, that proves that i am a malicious user, lying in wait for five years just to ruin wikipedia by trying to keep this article. Get a fucking grip on reality. You want to be an admin, then maybe read and learn how IPs work, when and how they change. One of the many reasons why i might want to reset my router (when the ISP doesn't reset the line itself) is because someone who has a grudge against me knows my IP and posts it online for everyone to see. So go ahead, delete this article to get it over with. In full compliance with wikipedia regulations (well maybe except that good faith thing but this is pretty much FUBAR by now), you have the power to judge anything against your view to hold no value and everyone who disagrees to be one single evil person. Guess what, i did 9/11 too - and then vandalized the article by posting governemt coverups! Yes that's right, see you again in 2012...

PS:if you have anything to contribute instead of banning users who disagree, i am always open to further discussion, if not with you, with wineguy and everyone else. That is of course i am not EVERY person in this discussion! Hahahahaha... seriously, get a grip.

Awesome, threaten me instead of responding to anything I said. You're right, I haven't used Wiki in a long time, and because of admins like you, it's unlikely I will again any time soon. I was directed here from a message board dedicated to video game music, and saw your furiously paranoid banning spree. It was really easy to disprove one user of being a sockpuppet of Nario's, so you'll forgive me if I assume that everybody banned for their involvement in this discussion also has nothing to do with him. (Here's me: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=kirby+pufocia&aq=f&aqi=&oq=&fp=c26c79a56c95bda8 - unless you're trying to say that I have been a sockpuppet for Nario across 20 different message boards since 2002) What exactly, has been your criteria? Because again, the only thing I see in common with everybody banned is that they disagree with the deletion of this article. I'm open to being proven wrong, but I'm not taking your word for anything. Kirby (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And as for not being able to determine people's countries of origin, I assume you have access to registered users' IP addresses, so you can in fact figure out where anybody is posting from. For example: http://ip-address-lookup-v4.com/lookup.php?ip=77.49.64.161 - you can see that this user (who I believe is the guy posting right above me) is from Greece. In fact, most of the unregistered comments were from him, not Nario (again, who lives in the US) - so there you have a double dose of assuming bad faith because he has a dynamic IP address and assuming he's a sockpuppet of Nario's because you have an inexplicable grudge against Nario. Anyway, all I'm asking is that you use this tool, see your mistake, and we can all put this behind us. Thank you. Kirby (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Seems to meet WP:ENTERTAINER if not WP:BAND for work on multiple video game soundtracks. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To add to my previous comments (and to reiterate what I stated above), at least two sources (1UP.com and MobyGames) are on the WikiProject Video games list of reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 09:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand based on Wyatt Riot's comments above me. Seems enough for further expansion rather than deletion. Preacher Bob (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. i dont really care what any of you self-righteous editing wiki-nazis say or think, this composer is as credible as a baroque composer like mozart. you guys are RUINING WIKIPEDIA with your pointless editing. cut it out. -Shawn Phase (who had his account banned by a wiki-editing mongo months ago)141.157.81.77 (talk) 03:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC) (I struck the !vote by Shawnphase - a self-admitted banned user.) Joshua Scott (talk) 04:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC) [reply]

• Keep This is Jayson Napolitano, the Editor-in-Chief of OSV. I don't see how OSV's validity as a source is in question. OSV is, in fact, an industry resource for numerous composers, audio professionals, and consumers. We have several link ins from verified game composers' websites claiming that OSV is their primary source of game music information, and our articles have been linked by major blogs including Destructoid, Kotaku, and Joystiq along with industry websites like 1UP. We work through company PR teams whenever possible, ensuring that the information presented is accurate and true, and develop relationships with composers directly, as in the case of the Kinuyo Yamashita interview, if employees are no longer accessible through official PR departments. It's pretty closed-minded to have a blanket policy that doesn't distinguish between personal and professional blogs.- Jayson Napolitano--Arcubalis (talk) 04:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete I've been chewing over this debate on-and-off all day and my standpoint's gone back and forth. My opinion is that the reliability and depth of the cumulative sources don't quite cut the mustard for a biography of a living person, particularly seeing as the lady's claim to fame is for composing the Castlevania soundtrack (or part of it, Jeremy Parish's 1up piece refers to her being "one of the composers on the original Castlevania"). There is nothing stopping Kinuyo being referred to in the development section of Castlevania and in the KONAMI KuKeiHa CLUB article, based on the 1up piece and OSV interview. I'm not satisfied that the Ready Up piece goes beyond being a self-published source written by Joe Bloggs, looking at the site's about page, which doesn't tell me much. The OSV interview certainly looks a lot more reliable in WP terms, but again I wouldn't hang a BLP on it, the 1up piece is about a concert not just this composer, useful as a source but not a piece that demonstrates much notability. Someoneanother 20:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We have to avoid "I do/don't like it arguments" on both sides and try to reconcile these cases to consensus policy. In this case the sources are not significant enough to establish general notability or notability as a creative professional. I agree with Someone that contribution to the composition of Castlevania can be included in the main article. The sources are weak and the notability requirements relatively high. By the way...the "she told me she wants to keep it" argument is completely invalid and should be dismissed in determining the outcome of this debate! Wikipeterproject (talk) 02:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is Justin Pfeiffer, contributing editor and translator for Original Sound Version. Here is some hard evidence of Kinuyo's Yamashita's involvement in the Castlevania soundtrack. It is a scan of the booklet included with the Video Games Live concert CD release, and she is clearly credited as composer for Castlevania, one of the pieces performed at the concert. Here is another official reference on Amazon Japan of her latest work on the soundtrack for a Japanese PC game called Gunhound. It is written in Japanese, but the first thing listed in the Product Description is her being the the game's composer. Feel free to run a translator program if need be. The reason it has been so hard to find reliable sources on Kinuyo Yamashita is because she has only come into the public light in the last year or so. With the ever increasing wide-spreading of the internet, more and more Japanese game composers are starting to reach out to their fans worldwide and make themselves known. It is also very hard to isolate her older references because she was part of a unit named "Konami Kukeiha Club" at the time of Castlevania. But as you can see here from these official sources, she is in fact for real. The page should stay. Justin Pfeiffer (talk) 02:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete - There's no doubt that she is verifiable (The 1UP article is perfectly fine), she strictly speaking doesn't pass WP:COMPOSER. But it depends on how we can interpret this for video game music (what do we make of "Appears at reasonable length in standard reference books on his or her genre of music."? Do we even have standard reference books on video game music?). I feel that there's room for this information somewhere on Wikipedia, although I'm currently not convinced that she requires a seperate article. What Someone says makes sense - to incorporate this information into the relevant video game articles. Marasmusine (talk) 13:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I am just pasting a comment i posted above, but it got lost in all the mess. It is very relevent to the new votes, so here it is in case you missed:

The video game music community and industry is a very recent, still emerging phenomenon compared to music in general, and video game music as a subculture is extremely community-driven, almost exclusively by means of the internet. This creates the problem that nearly every available resource can be considered either Unreliable or Original Research. It also makes it virtually impossible to use Google to locate more traditional resources, if any, due to the ratio of scientific resources to fansited being practically zero. Things might be better when it comes to japanese websites, but unfortunately most of us in the west can't read japanese.

Maybe there should be a specific policy for video game music and other cultural niches in a similar situation. Compare for example the number of reliable source articles dedicated to Super Mario Bros versus the number of reliable resource articles dedicated to the - well popular and instantly recognizable - music from that game. When it comes to composers the problem becomes even worse, and even for the most popular superstar composers such as Nobuo Uematsu the vast majority of resources are fan-driven, original research, or in some other way unreliable.

• I'd also like to emphasize that it seems pointless to ask for sources to verify the reliability of other sources, due to the facts i cite above. It's a vicious circle, and even scientific articles can be claimed to be unreliable, because they are based on peer (=community) reviewed sources and original research. In this case, the resources provided are considered universally reliable within the community. To raise doubt about them would be to investigate the VGM cultural phenomenon as a whole, and that, no matter the outcome, is original research and beyond the scope (and regulations) of Wikipedia. As long as the facts themselves are not doubted, the VGM community should be credible enough for a source. I also must point out that lots of other articles that deal with particular subcultures are supported with sources coming purely or primarily from within the respective communities.194.219.45.249 (talk) 15:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Lingam. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of Linga being a phallus theory. The text in the article itself contests the theory. It starts with Vivekananda questioning the theory. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Redtigerxyz ^Talk 16:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I created this during a cleanup effort by moving material unduly impacting the Lingam article. Currently, it consists of a predictably biased quote-farm; proper editing can fix this, as the issue is indeed a real one, philologically. Unfortunately, the issue is also a radioactive one, and therefore a cruft magnet, which is why I think an article on this separate from Lingam is needed anyway. Delete this one and in the fullness of time another one will appear for sure. The correct approach is to make a proper article of it so that the WP-ecological niche remains occupied. (I'm not partial to the current title; a better one would do nicely) rudra (talk) 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• A cleanup should not result in giving undue importance to a single aspect thereby neglecting NPOV --NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I think instead of overloading the main article, its better to have a article which discusses both the views in detail. I agree that the current version of the article is in bad shape, a does not mention all the POVs, but this can be improved. I have added a couple of them. We can improve this article with different views—for and against—and then we can summarize the issues in the main article. I think we can also decide upon a better title.--TheMandarin (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• The main article is really short and the addition of more Info (referenced) can improve the quality of the article--NotedGrant Talk 14:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Lingam A new article on the same topic gives undue importance to a non significant pov (at least not as significant as the main article) The article should be cleaned up of the quote farm and merged with the original article in a new section.--NotedGrant Talk 15:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Lingam. Simply does not seem to be enough here to justify new article. If main article gets too big, then we can fork.TheRingess (talk) 18:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I support a Merge, but not a redirect. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Lingam as per nomination and TheRingess --Deepak D'Souza (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Lingam. A textbook example of a content fork. Unlike the academic study of Hinduism, Wikipedia is not censored in line with Victorian sensibilities. Actually it is becoming so, but according to Wikipedia policy and basic ethical standards, it shouldn't be. — goethean ॐ 14:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. JForget 02:53, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Misogyny in hip hop culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD • AfD statistics)

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

Though this is sourced, it is still an essay-like piece (see WP:NOT.) Also, this piece isn't objective or balanced; it would require a fundamental rewrite in order to be encyclopedic. WordyGirl90 16:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I need to admit that I, too, believe this is a very worthy topic, but that one of the reasons I brought it to AfD was to bring a bad article to community attention. I'm a little daunted at the task of taking on a re-write myself. WordyGirl90 22:05, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep This is certainly a valid topic for an encyclopaedia article – much has been written about it in reputable sources, some of which we have included. Although I take the nominators point that the article may require a fundamental rewrite, I do not agree with the premise that the encyclopedia would benefit from the removal of the problematic material. At the extreme, stubbing to a line or two with the references would still be a better outcome than deletion.  Skomorokh  17:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Article as it stands reads like an essay and not as a valid encyclopedia article. Remove from mainspace and rewrite.--WaltCip (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why not do the rewriting in mainspace, isn't that the whole point of Wikipedia? It's not so outrageously offensive that it needs to be removed, like if it was an advert or something. --Pontificalibus (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Needs some vigorous editing, but that's no reason to delete.--Pontificalibus (talk) 17:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It is well documented, but it uses relatively few sources. I'd be much more comfortable with a wider variety of sources for a topic like this. It has a WP:SYNTH feel to it, but I can't really get to the point of calling it synth. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Skomorokh, as this is a suitable topic for any encyclopedia. RFerreira (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, good topic, the subject of much discussion in the media over the years. Everyking (talk) 08:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete. Non notable software which fails GNG. JBsupreme (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is this GNG you speak of? Edward Vielmetti (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 02:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No sources presented for notability. Miami33139 (talk) 02:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Given the scarcity of sources about Amiga software, I'm inclined to think that having a page in this book should be enough. Also included in a guide on Amiga software here OSNews. Pcap ping 04:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clicking on Google book search at the top of the AFD, I find 628 results. Its mentioned in that many books, so surely it must be notable. Otherwise they wouldn't talk about it, or use it in comparison to others that came afterward. Dream Focus 10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong You are including the results for "Antibody-Mediated Induction of Resistance to Cytotoxicity (AMIRC)", genes for AMIde ResistanCe, Amirc Palace and the person's name "Amirc" amongst other uses of AMIRC. A more realistic search on google books yields 2 results --Pontificalibus (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep X-chat is (allegedly, failed to find *reliable* references) influenced by AmIRC (http://packages.debian.org/fi/etch/xchat and http://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/gutsy/man1/xchat.1.html). Admittely sources are still weak. Xorxos (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • X-chat's own documentation is a reliable source for what influenced its own development. Pcap ping 06:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is X-chat even notable itself? --Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Skomorokh  16:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no real source to establish notability 16x9 (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not notable as no significant coverage, none of the "keep" arguments are convincing.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Extremely long article with one reference that is offline (a book). —  Cargoking  talk  15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I can't determine that the one referenced book has actually been published. Delete as original research.--Pontificalibus (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The fact that a reference is not available for free online does not in itself mean that the reference is invalid. However, I couldn't find the book when I searched the Library of Congress, the British Library, Worldcat or the National Library of Ireland. This is a bad sign, and suggests that the book was self-published or published by a subsidy publisher. However, here is a reference to the book on a discussion board at ancestry.com: http://boards.ancestry.com/surnames.woodlock/66/mb.ashx - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. - Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a copyright violation. The ancestry.com discussion mentioned above requests clarification of some missing text from the book used as source and every single part of the reply confirmed text that is identical to text in the article per this reply to the initial post on ancestry.com. So it appears to be a word for word copy of The Woodlock Families of Ireland. Here is another extract from the source book on a rootsweb.com discussion which again is identical to this section Woodlock family#The Woodlocks of Kildare 1318-1500 of the article and a third extract is at this Museumstuff.com page again identical to this section of the article Woodlock family#The family in 1700, reaffirming my copyright violation suspicion. ww2censor (talk) 04:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete because it is just a collection of data about people who happen to be related to each other. The family itself, unlike a few others in history, does not seem to be notable. Steve Dufour (talk) 21:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but it needs tidying. I see lots of links on google just for the bould Torsten utlag. It reminds me of Durrus and District History Modern, which has had similar issues for years but is not slated for deletion.Red Hurley (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What links? I can't see anything significant. I also can't find anything to suggest the family itself is notable (as this are the subject of the article, they should be notable as an entity). Regardless of that, how do you propose addressing the copyright concerns raised above other than by deleting all the content? --Pontificalibus (talk) 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was snowball keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Notability reasons previously raised several months ago, yet not addressed, or even edited, since SausageLady (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Gambetta is a notable scholar. He is even quoted in numerous articles on Wikipedia. - DonCalo (talk) 15:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. GS cites 6119, 2571, 1372, 586....etc. h index over 30. Full Professor at Oxford, well sourced article. This is among the most incompetent AfD nominations to come to these pages. It appears to amount to WP:disruptive editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I did make a mistake. The top two cites I gave referred to somebody else's publications and h index comes to 24. But the case still stands. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy Keep. I too would take it for granted that anyone who is a full professor at Oxford has to be a notable scholar. I am getting slightly smaller citation numbers in GScholar than those mentioned by Xxanthippe (1372, 1367, 586,...), but these are still very high numbers, especially for a scholar in humanities. Also, he is an elected Fellow of the British Academy. So clearly passes citeria 1 and 3 of WP:PROF. Nsk92 (talk) 00:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, pretty significant coverage in traditional newsmedia, 126 hits in GoogleNews[14]. The article could use the attention of an expert, though, and some clean-up for neutrality of language and tone. Nsk92 (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep per Nsk92 (Speedy would be fine too). LotLE×talk 19:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and beg the closing admin to admonish the good nominator to familiarize with WP:BEFORE. Ray^Talk 05:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolutely keep. No question of notability. MiRroar (talk) 18:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Nsk92, looks fine. JBsupreme (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus, technically speaking. Actually there does appear to be a consensus here (albeit not of the standard keep/delete/merge variety) which breaks down as follows: 1) The article, and therefore the info within, should not be deleted at this time; 2) Clearly there are problems with the article, e.g. pertaining to the title, NPOV, reliability of information, etc.; 3) With respect to number two, "the issue should be resolved through the normal editing process," as Black Falcon put it. There are multiple (conflicting) ideas about how to go about number three, so that should be discussed on the article talk page. A couple days of effort there from most of the people here will probably take care of most of the concerns. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Article devoted solely to the bad things about YouTube, which runs counter to our NPOV policies, as all articles must not be solely devoted to one viewpoint. This is the crux here: a valid summary style article would contain both criticism and praise of YouTube; neither is really in short supply. Unlike Social impact of YouTube, which at least tries to be neutral, this article is not, will not be, and fundamentally can not be because, as YouTube is not an artistic work in itself, the default definition of "criticism" implicitly restricts the content of the article to be negative. Additionally, the criticism itself is not notable; this is just a laundry list of poorly sourced criticisms that aren't really about YouTube, but about What People Do On The Internet That's Actually Against The Terms Of Service But News Services Be Damned To Make The Distinction (which is a problem with most "Criticism of Web 2.0 sites" article). The only section of the article that I can see containing merit is about copyright: both infringement and false claims thereof; which should be preferably split out to something like Copyright on YouTube or Copyright on the Internet. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:44, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - Then why isn't Criticism of Wikipedia, Criticism of Wal-Mart, and the Criticism of the War on Terrorism deleted? This is just the strangest nomination... smithers - talk 16:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"What about article X?" is not a good argument. It's not even an argument. The odds are, they haven't been nominated for deletion. And, the truth is, even if they were nominated, they'd probably get kept because "omggz itz notabul!" And there's nothing strange about enforcing NPOV. Sceptre ^(talk) 16:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Article devoted solely to the bad things about YouTube..." I would never of guessed that an article titled Criticism of YouTube would only focus on the negative side of things. Lugnuts (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the point. Your statement only strengthens the rationale for deletion, as no article subject will be looked on entirely negatively. I mean, Mussolini made the trains run on time. That's one good thing about Mussolini, you see? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Except he didn't make them run on time... ;-) Lugnuts (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was actually wondering which episode it was from while I was typing it. The point is, even the most evil men in history have done something good. Hitler helped create the autobahns and the Volkswagen. Saddam Hussein had one of the most LGBT-friendly governments in the Middle East (after Israel). Hell, Mussolini did improve Italy's infrastructure. It's practically impossible for anything that exists to be viewed negatively, so criticism articles should therefore not exist for the most part. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of a 'Criticism' article doestn' not oligical state that there are no positive aspects to the entity being criticised. Your rationale for deleetion of this article is completely flawed. Vexorg (talk) 18:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But by making an article about solely negative aspects, you're implying that the negative aspects are more important than the positive aspects. We are therefore not "representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias". Sceptre ^(talk) 18:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep per Smithers7 - Meta-arguing by the nominator presents no policy-based reasons for deletion, apart from citing an essay.--WaltCip (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, NPOV isn't a policy? When did this happen? Sceptre ^(talk) 17:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV doesn't apply here. This is a content fork to keep the main article from being too large.--WaltCip (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. NPOV applies to every article. From Wikipedia:Content forking:

Any daughter article that deals with opinions about the subject of parent article must include suitably-weighted positive and negative opinions, and/or rebuttals, if available, and the original article should contain a neutral summary of the split article.

This article contains no positive opinions about YouTube; therefore it is not a legitimate content fork. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you expect an article called Criticism of YouTube to contain positive opinions on Youtube? That's absurd :) :) Vexorg (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's an article. If an article cannot be neutral, it should not exist. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is neutral. It's neutral in portraying the criticisms of Youtube. Vexorg (talk) 18:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please show that criticism of YouTube is notable, then. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:33, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Inherently non-neutral, the same as most of the other Criticism of.... articles. CIreland (talk) 18:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The nominator is not understanding the NPOV policies. The NPOV policy is about the article itself and not the content of the article. If criticisms of a body or person is notable then as long as those criticisms are not portrayed in a biased way then it doesn't contravene NPOV. I agree with WaltCip Vexorg (talk) 18:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point: "criticism of YouTube" is not notable. This is a list of criticisms, yes, but the concept of criticism of YouTube is not notable in itself. Imagine if we listed an article called Criticism of Barack Obama (we did, briefly for about thirteen hours, last March), in a "neutral voice", all of the criticism of him for being a socialist communist fascist Muslim Kenyan who hasn't shown his birth certificate. Would that contravene NPOV? Yes. Because there's just as much praise for Obama for being a good orator, for being more down to earth, for compassion, but that wouldn't get in said article. The subject of our "Criticism of Barack Obama" article isn't the criticism itself; the subject is Obama. Now, think about YouTube: sure people are cocks on YouTube, but the website at the same time has allowed many people to get their fifteen minutes of fame, makes watching videos on the internet much easier, so where is this praise? It isn't there. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to "Critiques of YouTube". Then add positive critique as well. Kate (talk) 20:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Well sourced article, notable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Please show that the concept of criticism of YouTube is notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[15], [16] are just two of the many WP:RSs cited. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just aggregating what politicians have said in the legislature doesn't make it notable. That's one of the major functions of the news media. The concept isn't notable at all; this is just a laundry list of criticisms that are not-notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Show that they are not notable versus the many WP:RSs in the article. Vexorg (talk) 00:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring for a second that the burden of proof is on the one seeking to include content, content is notable if:

a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject

Sources. Plural. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are many reliable plural sources cited in this article. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are plural sources, yes. But not plural sources for each criticism. Ergo, each criticism is non-notable. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why they are all in one article. Each criticism has at least 5 sources, though some aren't reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: As far as I can tell, the existence of "Criticism of..." sections is generally dealt with on a case by case basis: Wikipedia:Criticism, Wikipedia:Content forking, WP:CRITS etc. Most of the delete comments here appear to be about these sections in general (NPOV for example), and therefore fail to address this case specifically, as simply being a "Criticism of" section does not automatically mean the article is necessarily a candidate for deletion [17]. The article could (like any article of this type) be seen as a POV fork, but if properly dealt with (including arguments against the criticisms for example), then that in itself does not seem too problematic to me. The content on the page seems extremely well referenced, and there is far too much of it to be realistically incorporated into the Youtube article. Jhbuk (talk) 00:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The referencing is terrible; quite a lot of it's to blogs or YT channels/videos. The sourcing isn't the problem though; neutrality's the problem: there's no rebuttals of the criticism, except in the copyright section, and it's not really criticising the service; it's criticising the users of the service; I mean, even in the copyright section, no point is made about the fact that ten hours of video are uploaded every minute so they really can't screen content (and when TOU violations are pointed out, they're often removed quickly). Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just because it might not appear particularly good now, it doesn't mean it never will be. AfD is really about whether the article could become a satisfactory article; if it could be improved to be one, without having to be fundamentally rewritten (there still seems to be a substantial amount of useable information there, and the article should therefore be salvageable) then it should surely be tagged for rescue first. Admittedly, some of the references come from fairly poor sources, but you can't ignore the newspapers and places like CNN and the BBC. I don't know enough about the topic to make a decision about completeness etc, but even if it isn't a satisfactory article now, as I mentioned, why can't an article called "Criticism of Youtube" exist, even if it may have to be different to its present form? Jhbuk (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the article could become satisfactory. I didn't mention the sourcing as I'm well aware that badly sourcing is not AFDable in itself. I don't think the article can ever exist because of its title: if an article is named "Criticism of X", where X is not an artistic work, then the default meaning will remove any hope of neutrality because it explicitly only focuses on the negative aspects of X while completely ignoring the positive aspects; whether the negative aspects of X outnumber the positive aspects is irrelevant, as the total set of aspects should not be split into two and one given preferential treatment. Editorial attitudes on Wikipedia also preclude any attempt of neutralising such an article—as this AfD sadly shows once again—because the "it's notable, therefore it must be covered" viewpoint (even if the "it" is not notable) and removal of positive aspects, and sometimes even rebuttals, from criticism articles is endemic. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you're coming from (which is why I went for a comment instead of a !vote), but there is nothing I've seen in policy that absolutely forbids such articles, and as a result, we find ourselves back at smithers7's point again. This is a criticism of policy in not banning these articles more than a specific criticism of this one, as the WP' policy makers' do not appear to share the view that such articles cannot abide by NPOV, by definition. I think that you should go to the village pump. Your main criticism is about all of these articles, and it is not specific to this one. If this article is deleted, then they all should be, if this is the primary argument, unless you can make it specific to YouTube. Jhbuk (talk) 01:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is prohibited in policy under a general prohibition of content forks, here. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What about this and in particular WP:Content forking, which states that "There is currently no consensus whether a "Criticism of..." article is always a POV fork, but many criticism articles nevertheless suffer from POV problems." WP:NPOV#Point of view (POV) and content forks mentions only POV forks, but it cannot therefore automatically equate "Criticism of" articles as them, due to the WP:Content forking guideline. Jhbuk (talk) 19:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: all of the criticisms of YouTube, including the YouTube Channels 2.0, have some notability involved.--It's my Junior year in High School! (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)Chris[reply]

  Wrong. There's no criticism in the sources given for YT2.0. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Complaint: the nominator for the deletion of this article, Sceptre, is taking an axe to the article in order to boost his/her argument for deletion Vexorg (talk) 00:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No, I'm taking an axe to the article because a lot of the article contains poor sourcing. Big difference there. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced in YOUR OPINION. Why are you so heavily editing an article you want deleted? Just get on with it, you seem to be on a hypnotic mission at the moment. I won't be edit warring with you while you are on your rampage. Vexorg (talk) 00:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly sourced in any sane person's opinion. I mean, really, are websites that fully embrace trutherism and blame the Haiti earthquake on oil drilling reliable sources in anyone's book? Sceptre ^(talk) 00:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per above arguments. --Ixfd64 (talk) 01:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  Per what arguments? The absolutely specious ones that I proverbially threw over a barrel and raped? Sceptre ^(talk) 01:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  No the arguements that are genuine and are virgins. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 03:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Just because an article is about criticism doesn't mean it's POV. We just have to show the sources in a fair light. POV would be say to say things like YouTube is Google's latest step in its quest to achieve total control of the content of the Web and destroy all of its competitors sourced to a news item that in an NPOV article would only be used to say something like Many critics of Google have pointed out that YouTube controls most of the online video industry and that Google's acquisition of it may have negative consequences for its competitors. I'd say the same thing if someone tried to delete the Nazi article by saying it was biased against Nazis. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  See what I said to Lugnuts: we're okay with criticism of something in an article. What we're not okay with is an article pretending that everything about the subject is bad. With your Nazi example, it's like apples and oranges: with the Nazis, we say the Nazis were bad, but in a historical voice and good quality sources that doesn't say they're outright evil; hell, the Hitler article says that for all the bad stuff he did, he at least improved German infrastructure a hell of a lot. With this article, it's gossipy, recentist, and just focuses entirely about the bad things about YouTube without ever focusing on the responses to the criticism or focusing on the good parts (except for some parts of the copyright section, which I think should be spun out once we get rid of this article). Sceptre ^(talk) 01:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sceptre above: "...it's gossipy, recentist, and just focuses entirely about the bad things about YouTube without ever focusing on the responses to the criticism...": This sounds to me like a mini-peer review pointing to areas that need improvement, rather than criteria for deletion. Sensei48 (talk) 02:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is important information here - a very good precis of copyright issues that go far beyond YT but for which YT is the current flashpoint. It's too detailed to fold into the YT article, though it needs more sourcing. The title is problematic, IMHO, as it is for all of the other "criticism of" articles referenced above. Those titles are puerile and un-encyclopedic. This one might better be titled with ref. to YT and copyright issues, which is after all the bulk of the article. Sensei48 (talk) 01:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and Reorganize Content. As it is right now, the article reads like a POV fork, which violates WP:NPOV. Now, this is mainly due to the last two sections. There's a trick here. If this article was specifically targetted to discussion YouTube and Copyright (including both what steps it takes including the audio forensics) and criticism of that (how to name it, I don't know), and the other sections moved back to the main article, we're removing the NPOV issue without losing coverage. But keeping those last two sections outside of the main youtube article hurts this article's viabilities. --MASEM (t) 05:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Sign-up sheet:
  I can guess where this is going: people scream "has potential!" and "can be improved!" - and once the deal is over, we all go home, and nobody's gonna do anything. Please sign up below and pledge you will actually clean up this mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1. TheWeakWilled (T * G)
2. <your name>
3. <your name>
4. <your name>
5. <your name>
6. <your name>

   I do not want to sign this because it would seem to be that to do so would be to endorse the idea this article should only be kept if it is massively re-written, which is not what I mean with my !vote. I think the article is good as it is. Of course it can be improved, but my keep !vote is not contingent on any major changes to the article promised to happen in the future; nor are any of my other keep !votes on any other AfD. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 22:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine. :) I, however, do think that it needs to be completely re-written, and am curious to know who would do so before casting some sorta !vote (if at all) Here's why: I won't vote keep 'cause I not for sure that I am definitely not the one who's gonna spend any time on this, but I won't vote delete before I am certain no-one else will improve this mess. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but needs quite a bit of work. As stated above, many of the problems could be fixed with some work. Agree that parts of the article are rather sloppy at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE per nom, and as an uninvolved third party to countless of this kind of article, my view is that it is totally non-encyclopedic and serves no meaningful purpose, at all. Please take your time and honestly answer to the questionnaires below:
  

Q1: Does it actually improve Wikipedia?
A1: No.
Q2: Does it further the cause of Wikipedia being a free online Encyclopedia? (particular emphasis being on the definition of Encyclopedia!)
A2: No.
Q3: Does the existence of this article conform to the list of deleted other uncyclopedic contents such as List of cities by the sea/List of cities by the coast?
A3: Yes.
In fact, another recently deleted template suffered from the same problem → Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_30#Template:Major_cities_of_Greater_China, and was deleted after a long protracted discussion besides having too much presented "facts" from original researchers and POV pushers. But that's just my 2 cents. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This is another of those Wikipedia articles that "just growed" like Topsy. Yes, there is some pruning needed, but there is some well sourced material, particularly on the copyright issue.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 09:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Pardon me but I beg to differ, this here is a newsy article (yes, it fringes on being WP:NEWS) while the Topsy you've mentioned is a novel, which IMO means that your comparison is way off. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Growed like Topsy" is a figure of speech. Many Wikipedia articles do this over a period of time. It is easy to point out problems in Criticism of YouTube such as WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. However, there are articles like Criticism of Wikipedia that manage to live with these issues without being deleted. This is why I would support WP:CLEANUP as the first option here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 10:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, I beg to differ. Don't take it personally if I say this but here goes: "Would you care to sign yourself up on the sign-up sheet further up so that we know of the actual number of people willing to devote their own time to do whatever is required than say... just talk about it, which everybody can do." There's been a lot of cases where a lot of promises was made but no actions were undertaken to fulfilled it, here is another likely sample. Correct me if I'm wrong. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 12:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Come on Dave, the sign-up game is a silly gimmick. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort. Let's debate here, not use stunts found in political campaigns.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 13:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't come on me, I wanna know if you would commit to your words otherwise "don't write the check which you can't cash", to coin a phrase. All that I see above are so many people saying "KEEP" but none are willing to take the plunge to commit themselves to that Sign-up sheet to actually improve it or balance the criticisms aspect, which is at the centre of this AfD! Mind you, its easy to create an article on WP but how about maintaining it? Hence, my phrase above. Also, I have started tagging the article with maintenance templates and cleaning ups, what are you actually doing, if I may ask? Still want to talk? Why not silence the critics with our actions and deeds instead? Don't just say "KEEP" for the sake of saying it but what happens after that? There are some situations where you cannot have your cake and still be able to eat it, you know? And this is one of them, period. No offence to you but I don't think you can speak if you haven't taken the questionnaire I cited above. And no, I'm not mad at anyone... just annoyed that there can be irresponsible people who go on doing such things and yet, not even batting an eyelid or think anything of it. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 14:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a "silly gimmick". I wanna know who's actually gonna do it so we won't have this mess rotting in the corner for months (or years). I see one person signed up as of know. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Dave, as stated before, Wikipedia debates are not political campaigns. It is a common feature of political campaigns for one of the candidates to hold up a document and say "Would you care to sign this?" I am quite happy to spend some time on a cleanup of Criticism of YouTube. Let's stay on topic here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 14:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why don't we just incubate this article? It would get it out of the mainspace, and would allow people to work on it if they wanted, but it couldn't cause any harm. If nobody worked on it, so what? We haven't lost anything, and there is still a lot of useful information there that could at least be partially incorporated into YouTube related articles. Jhbuk (talk) 19:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I went through to article and (took me an hour) sourced the majority of the article, but didn't get to the last section. Most of the sources listed are reliable. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 19:20, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Do not delete (note that this is not the same as "keep"). I agree with most of what the nominator writes, including the main point that we should not have an article devoted solely to criticisms of YouTube. However, in this case, I believe that the issue should be resolved through the normal editing process (i.e., split or merge appropriate content into other articles, then convert this article into a redirect) since there is valid content and information contained in the article. –Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Orginazations and topics of extreme notability are usually large enough to have a critisism section, if not an entire article. Per how we've dealt in this area in the past, this should be kept. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 09:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Enough well-sourced contents to justify a separate article from YouTube#Criticism per WP:SUMMARY. Pcap ping 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- Pcap ping 10:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a violation of WP:NPOV for the reasons stated by the nominator. Like another commenter above, I find it very unlikely that this will be fixed to be more neutral; "Keep and cleanup" almost never actually works. *** Crotalus *** 16:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... You do realize that it's currently being sourced and modified to comply with WP:NPOV (as much as it needs to)?--WaltCip (talk) 16:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The topic is clearly notable and it is certainly possible to discuss criticism in accordance with the NPOV policy. Everyking (talk) 09:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The article isn't any different from other "Criticism of" articles, not to mention that the stuff mentioned in the article were heavily criticized by the Youtube users. TuneyLoon 06:21, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Everyking, Pcap and Coffee. It is common consensus that in such cases, criticism section can be dealt with separate articles. --Cyclopia^talk 03:03, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to YouTube. On the face of it it looks like a valid spin-out, but actually once you look closer it's not a super-long article, and much of the content is unnecessary (for example, a long list of copyright infringement complaints that are just minor news items and are written in prose—this could be seriously trimmed or just condensed into a list, it doesn't need to take up so much space). With cleanup it could easily be short enough to fit within the main YouTube article, where it would be (and already is, in fact) an appropriate section.

  On the side, I should also point out that while there is nothing inherently wrong with "Criticism of..." articles, they should have impeccable sources to illustrate that the criticism is really notable. This one, unfortunately, appears to be almost entirely news articles—it's assembling a jigsaw puzzle of criticism out of a lot of little pieces. If the same criticism were processed and analyzed in, for example, a book or journal article, it would be much more valid here. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:14, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article was much longer before. Sceptre (who was one of the voices of deletion) deleted most of the content that he stated was unsourced, so that whether or not the article is deleted, his agenda wins out - the original version no longer exists. At this point, yes, it probably could be merged.--WaltCip (talk) 18:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • From a quick look at the history, it seems that Sceptre has deleted sourced information because of dead links; however, if my understanding is correct, this action violates WP:DEADLINK. News sources doesn't cease to be WP:RS only because they're no more on the web. Any comment, Sceptre? --Cyclopia^talk 18:42, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • DEADLINK doesn't have any procedural force on the encyclopedia; it's merely a suggestion. And as quite a lot of the dead references sourced things related to living people, BLP takes precedence over anything else, policy or guideline. Sceptre ^(talk) 18:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • It doesn't take precedence over WP:IAR. Have you tried looking on archive.org? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Actually, it doesn't. And it's not my job to look for replacement sources. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." With a lack of previously cited information, Wikipedia isn't being improved. It isn't my job either, but I can make a reasonable effort to look for sources. If you're going to delete previously sourced material, because of a 404 look on archive before you delete it. It only takes a reasonable effort. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • It's not my job to. And BLP cannot be ignored because there is never a good reason to ignore it. Sceptre ^(talk) 06:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then don't delete the information then. I will be readding the info that was deleted, so other users may look for cites. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 20:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Sorry, that's not how it works. Any content that reinserts the unsourced allegations regarding living people will be reverted as vandalism. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • They will be sourced. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • And if said allegations are reinserted with sources, what then?--WaltCip (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. 15:43, 6 February 2010 Firsfron (talk | contribs) deleted "Midnight Notes Collective" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Midnight Notes Collective) (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Academic group with a website, but no evidence of notability, and no assertion of notability. The only ref or external link is to the collective's own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 02:43, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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

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