Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 June 16

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. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. --Nonstopdrivel 20:39, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. - Mailer Diablo 17:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

This does not seem to pass WP:WEB. There is only 1 assertion of notability, that the comic strip is "widely popular", yet there are no references given to support this. Article seems designed to promote the comic.Delete TheRingess (talk) 05:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - the proof is, as they say, in the pudding. And pease porridge in the pot, still needs reliable sources to back up notability, nine days old or not. --Haemo 07:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Snafu Comics.--Edtropolis 16:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — and do not merge. There are no independant sources to back the claims of notability, so the information should not be moved. *Cremepuff222* 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete nn. JJL 17:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete This probably fails notability, however it seems sort of on the edge. Maybe redirect if not delete? Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 05:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable president of non-notable organization. Corvus cornix 05:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete; the parent-organization article has already been marked as such. --Quuxplusone 06:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had originally listed it for speedy, the tag was removed. Corvus cornix 06:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• hangon. Really... There is a «prestigious Louis Atwell Olney Medal for outstanding achievement in the field of textile chemistry»[1] «established in 1944 in honor of Louis Atwell Olney, the founder and first president of AATCC [to recognize] outstanding achievement in textile or polymer chemistry or other fields of chemistry of major importance to textile science»[2]. So maybe there is a reason to have an article. But not as is, that's for sure. - Nabla 00:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Added to the article. - Nabla 01:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then fix the article quickly, instead of writing the article here! Hu 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Though the article is short, the facts at our disposal show that he was a famous textile chemist. This establishes his notability, and future editors who go to the library should be able to dig up more biographical facts when they have time. In 1921 he founded a society, the AATCC, which still exists and satisfies WP:CORP, since it is a national organization of chemists. I added his date of death and some details about his two cited books which I found in the Library of Congress catalog. Wikilinked our long-existing article on the American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists. EdJohnston 02:49, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Someone created a redundant article The American Association of Textile Chemists and Colorists (with 'The' in front) which was speedy-deleted as a copyvio on 16 June. There is no need to re-create that unnecessary article. (This duplicate article must be the one mentioned by Quuxplusone above as a speedy candidate). EdJohnston 03:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Textile and dye chemistry isn't just a applied branch of the subject; rather, it is from this subject that modern synthetic organic chemistry developed with the preparation of the first synthetic dyes in 1858. (perhaps it would help if the chemists would actually write general articles for this). It's been central to polymer chemistry from the start--the natural textile polymers are the substances for which macromolecular chemistry and x-ray crystallography were developed. The Association is central to the development of chemistry in the US, as is he. I've added some references for him, more on the wayDGG 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • since it doesnt seem the chemistry wikiproject was notified, continue for another 5 days. 04:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

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. WjBscribe 12:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

K2 (theme) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Non-notable WordPress theme, we don'thave articles on any other WP themes. I don't see anything that makes this theme specially notable. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Wordpress and Delete. 220.227.179.4 14:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and delete isn't an option, as the GFDL requires a history be kept. Not that I'm seeing much here worth merging anyway. FrozenPurpleCube 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete absent a showing of some third-party notability. If there's anything that needs to be said about this theme, let Wordpress say it on their website. FrozenPurpleCube 14:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom.--Edtropolis 14:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 05:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; no evidence of notability. —Psychonaut 19:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Internet search reveals only a bunch of personal blogs, source download sites, etc. No notable reviews from reputable third party sources so I will have to say delete. --_Hdt83 ^Chat 18:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: couldn't agree more. --Nonstopdrivel 20:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 17:07, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect→Lost Lake (a disambiguation page). During the course of the discussion Lost Lake (Canada) was moved to Lost Lake (Abbotsford). The original concern was around the title being misleading, giving inappropriate emphasis to a single Canadian lake. There appears to be little concern expressed below about the content of Lost Lake (Abbotsford). If there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Canada) after its target is changed, please list at WP:RFD; if there is a desire to delete Lost Lake (Abbotsford), please renominate via WP:AFD (I'm closing this due to the discussion not focusing on the article content). User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Lake (Canada) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Reason the page should be deleted Sp4rk3d 05:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This page should be deleted because the information is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sp4rk3d (talk • contribs) 23:03 (UTC) 15 June 2007

• Comment: I have added the rest of the Lost Lakes I could find to the disambiguation page Lost Lake. All of them are notable. I have moved this page to Lost Lake (Abbotsford) for disambiguation within British Columbia. Lost Lake (Canada) has been redirected to Lost Lake. Tim Q. Wells 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For everyone's convenience I have changed the redirect at the top (Lost Lake (Canada)) to the article for deletion. Tim Q. Wells 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note AfD was malformed; cleaned up. LaughingVulcan 05:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I replaced the article with a stub on another lake that is in Whistler, British Columbia. Tim Q. Wells 05:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Neutral. There is more than one lake in BC alone called Lost Lake - there's one near Powell River, one near Whistler, one near Coquitlam, and one in the Cariboo. There are also Lost Lakes in Alberta, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, the Northwest Territories (possibly three!) and Nunavut. I'm not sure what makes this one in Whistler more notable than the others, but Lost Lake (Canada) is a pretty bad name for just the one. --Charlene 06:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Sp4rk3d has previously blanked this stub when it was originally titled Lost Lake (Sumas Mountain), saying that his brother wanted the article removed. Spurious and unfounded in my opinion. A_Kiwi (User:A_Kiwi)

• Comment. I have added the rest of the Lost Lakes I could find to the disambiguation page Lost Lake. All of them are notable. I have moved this page to Lost Lake (Abbotsford) for disambiguation within British Columbia. Lost Lake (Canada) has been redirected to Lost Lake. Tim Q. Wells 06:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Magioladitis 07:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE This page should be deleted because it is really a very unimportant lake, and if there are so many otehr Lost Lkaes in Canada, why should this one be here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.216.215.187 (talk • contribs)
• Keep Useful disambiguation and lakes tend to have reliable sources containing information about them. Capitalistroadster 01:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Another editor has changed the link to a redirect to Lost Lake, and in fact the original AFD notice is on Lost Lake (Abbotsford). When an article is under AFD it must not be renamed or changed to a redirect until it is resolved. I have attempted to revert as much as possible. 23skidoo 01:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment 23skidoo is correct. The original AfD was tagged with Lost Lake (Canada), as was the malformed tag here. ANd the Lost Lake (Canada) now redirects to Lost Lake, a disambig page for Lost Lakes. I'm not sure if the right course of action is to simply fix the tags here and at Lost Lake (Abbotsford), as the user above did not do (nor should have started moving pages around,) or if the AfD here should be closed and reopened for Lost Lake (Abbotsford), or if this should be closed out with no prejudice towards somebody else nominating Lost Lake (Abbotsford). It wasn't that the disambig redirect was bad, per se, just causing a lot of confusion with this AfD. LaughingVulcan 03:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Speedy close. This AfD is a mess. Close it and start a new one for Lost Lake (Abbotsford) if that's the page you want to delete. —David Eppstein 05:25, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How is it a mess? The article for deletion was moved. And why on earth would we start another one? Consensus seems to be clear and users I'm sure would not vote until they are certain of the article for deletion. The only delete vote was made by 207.216.215.187 and is almost certainly a meatpuppet of Sp4rk3d. Tim Q. Wells 05:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:05, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to Mr. Wells. The reason it's a mess is because it still says at the top "Lost Lake (Canada)". So if I plug that into the Search box on the left instead of clicking the link, I get the disambig page. If I click it at the top, all of a sudden I'm looking at Lost Lake (Abbotsford.) Most simply, the article now being considered for deletion is not the article that this AfD log says it is. Also, at least one of the Keep votes above is very clearly speaking to the disambig page you created, while other Delete comments are talking about the Abottsford article. Editing the page to make it better during AfD is great. Moving pages and replacing the page with a redirect, etc. isn't cool, because a) it causes this type of confusion - what's the closing Admin supposed to read into this debate now that it's talking about at least two things? and b) There was no reason you couldn't have expressed the opinion "Move article to [[Lost Lake {Abbotsford)]] and Redirect to Lost Lake", or "Redirect to Lost Lake" if you wanted the original article gone. Still not saying you didn't have a good idea - I like the solution you came up with - but now the non-comment parts of this AfD are confusing. LaughingVulcan 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Close per myself above; let anyone who wishes renominate Lost Lake (Abbotsford) if they wish. LaughingVulcan 12:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close and Redirect Lost Lakes (Canada) to Lost Lakes (disambiguation). The Lakes Project naming convention is that the main redirect target the most notable lake of the same name. I don't see the evidence that this Abbotsford lake qualifies as the most notable lake of that name in Canada. Canuckle 18:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable dead Linux distribution. Chealer 05:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for failure to assert notability. Distro is not currently under development, and there is no evidence it ever achieved widespread usage. Of the 795 Ghits on the topic, the majority appear to be Wiki mirrors or first-person accounts from the distro's developer and thus fail WP:RS. --Nonstopdrivel 20:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability to come. Chealer 04:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as utterly non-notable—the first release was just two weeks ago! We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. --Coredesat 02:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable and apparently dead software project. Chealer 04:51, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into List_of_Linux_Distributions and delete (also delete the redirect page). huji—TALK 19:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:16, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RS. --Nonstopdrivel 20:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. WjBscribe 12:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE KEEP. :-P —SlamDiego_←T 04:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Chealer meant "Perl/Linux", not "Linux" 650l2520 04:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ha! Bill, we know that it's you! ;-P —SlamDiego_←T 05:00, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: WP:SNOW. All accounts in favor of deletion will be sockpuppets of Bill Gates. —SlamDiego_←T 04:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Now that the suggestion that Linux be deleted has been replaced with one that Perl/Linux be deleted, I withdraw at least two of my earlier comments. —SlamDiego_←T 05:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable. themcman1 _Talk 12:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per nom. Rgds, --Trident13 22:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No evidence of notability. We really need a {{db-software}} CSD. —Psychonaut 19:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was No consensus (default to Keep). Walton^talk 19:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Indiscriminate list and directory of loosely-associated topics. Seeks to capture any reference to Holmes or any character from Holmes whether Holmes appears or not or anything that has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase. Otto4711 04:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, OR, violates WP:TRIVIA. Corvus cornix 05:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete - I think Holmes is such an iconic and popular figure that an article about this topic could be written up to encyclopedic standards. This is not it -- it's unsourced and very tenuously connected. --Haemo 07:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete anything interesting to main article. -N 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nom. Dalejenkins 18:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete as per Corvus cornix and Wikipedia:Handling_trivia#Practical_steps. huji—TALK 19:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not an acceptable option per GFDL. See Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy/Merge and delete. DHowell 06:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Sherlock Holmes has in fact attained an extremely large place in popular culture in the 120 years since the first story was published. Per Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles popular culture references should be spun off to a separate article if they make the main article too long. The Sherlock Holmes article is too long as is, at 77k. These entries are not loosely associated (they are fictional appearances of Holmes or his main villain Moriarity), not indiscriminate (all are closely related to Sherlock Holmes), and not trivial, and so the grounds proposed by the nominator and other advocates of deletion do not apply. In any event, WP:TRIVIA, labelled a guideline, is so disputed that it has had to be protected, not a ringing endorsement of its having consensus. The normal editing process can remove any entry which merely "has a name that sounds like a Holmes catchphrase." It is not OR or unsourced to state that a CS Lewis book says "those days Mr Sherlock Holmes was still living in Baker Street ... " We do not need a second book stating what the first book says, or stating that a reference to Holmes is a reference to Holmes. Deletion is inappropriate for something which genuinely has a major place in pop culture, as does Sherlock Holmes. Edison 19:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:"In_popular_culture"_articles is an essay. It has absolutely no force as a policy or a guideline. It is an expression of opinion. Even if it did have some measure of force, it does not say what you're representing it to say. It does not say that "in popular culture" sections should be split off into a standalone article. It says that such sections in articles are discouraged and that the temptation to fork out such sections from the main article should be resisted, but that if it is succumbed to the resulting article must meet all relevant policies and guidelines. This list is indiscriminate and its items are loosely associated because it seeks to capture every reference that it can regardless of the source of it and it offers no commentary about the importance of the reference in the work from which it's drawn, to Holmes, or in the real world. What does knowing that C.S. Lewis wrote the words "Sherlock Holmes" in a book tell us about Holmes, the book, Lewis or the world? Nothing. What does knowing that in an episode of CSI the team investigated the murder of a Holmes portrayer in a fan club tell us about Holmes, CSI or the real world? Nothing. What does the mention of Holmes in a Coasters song tell us about Holmes, the Coasters or the real world? Nothing. There are certainly ways to do articles on the pop culture impact of things. The oft-bandied about Joan of Arc list is one. The Rocky Horror Picture Show cult following, although it needs a good bit of work, is another. But these endless lists of in-this-movie-this-one-guy-says-Blah-to-this-other-guy kind of "be the first to spot the reference" game some editors like to play under the delusion that it contributes something worthwhile to the project, aren't. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever the result, do not merge it back. There was a good reason to offload this information away. And I have to agree with Edison - for example there one rather known 1930s movie in Czech language using the "Sherlock Holmes" character. Not that I am going to put it there but to me it strongly suggests that people will feel the need to insert such references. It is better to have them in a leaf than in the main article. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Better here than there is a poor reason for maintaining a pop culture article. As has been said time and again, if the people who maintain an article want this stuff gone, they should edit it out. Dumping a pile of garbage into a separate article is irresponsible and places a burden on other editors to do the job that the editors of the initial article should have dealt with. Otto4711 21:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not much good now, but certainly could be. Johnbod 22:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unsourced trivia.-- danntm ^T _C 23:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as unsourced and tenuously-linked trivia at the moment. Something good may be able to come of this article, but this isn't it. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 05:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep though in most cases these articles are unnecessary, for the major cultural icons there should be, and I for one would like to see all the non-English media versions found and discussed. WP is the ideal place for this. DGG 07:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Although there is a clear bias against these sorts of articles on Wikipedia, and the article itself can be improved, Sherlock Holmes is undeniably a case where such an article is viable and necessary. 23skidoo 01:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ever notice how often at AFDs people base their argument for keeping in large part or even in toto on how much better the article could be? And then, in two months when the article is nominated again because it's still terrible and no one's done any work on it, it gets deleted? Otto4711 13:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep this is an exception to the normal delete of pop culture artilces, because the phenomenon of Holmes in popular culture is itself the subject of discussion and coverage by reliable sources, e.g., National Public Radio (US), A book entitled The Baker Street Reader: Cornerstone Writings About Sherlock Holmes (Contributions to the Study of Popular Culture), and University of Minnesota library. This subject differs from the huge number of "in popular culture" subjects which can never be more than a list of cross-references to the "icon". Here, the phenomenon itself is notable. The article, in its current state, is very much like many we have deleted; but unlike those, this may yet be a great article because it is a notable subject - it ought to be improved rather than deleted. Carlossuarez46 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yes, the Holmes stories are very influential, but that's covered in Sherlock Holmes in other media and (the atrociously titled) Non-canonical works related and derived from Sherlock Holmes. I don't see what this covers that those don't, except really trivial offhand mentions. —Celithemis 22:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually neither article (I agree that the name of the latter is suboptimal) really captures the spirit of the article I envision (and yes, I am hoping perhaps against hope that te someone would write it). The other media article is the films, tv stories, etc. based on Sherlock Holmes; the non-canonical adaptations (SH is in the public domain apparently and anyone can write a SH book, or make a movie). Neither article touches upon the public's inclusion and adoption of Holmes in anything but the literary and film/tv sense. Carlossuarez46 00:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does the information in Pop culture references to Sherlock Holmes really get us any closer to that?

Whatever of it isn't already in other articles, that is. In addition to the two other articles I mentioned, there's also quite a bit of similar stuff in Sherlock Holmes. In all, two articles include lists of Holmes computer games, three of them talk about House, and three discuss the same Neil Gaiman story. —Celithemis 00:38, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That question you pose is an interesting one: one the one hand, no; on the other hand, once this gets deleted, no one could write the article that I envisage; it would be speedied as "yet another one of those pop culture" articles that "we deleted a while back". Carlossuarez46 01:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not true. Any number of articles which were deleted have been recreated. There is no prejudice to recreated deleted articles that are qualitatively different from the deleted. No one is likely to look to delete at an actual sourced article that discusses the phenomenon of SH in popular culture as opposed to a random smattering of bullet points on the grounds that it's recreated material. Otto4711 03:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Violation of WP:NOT and, as already stated, Sherlock Holmes in other media exists for less trivial bits. Most of this is indiscriminate trivia. Besides, "Pop culture"? Incredibly tacky. María (críticame) 17:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an unencyclopedic directory of indiscriminate trivia. Purely consists of original research; coverage of a fictional character's presence in popular culture should be reflected through uncovered commentary, not directly uncovered examples by the editors themselves. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The main Sherlock Holmes article is already quite long. It's reasonable and expected per WP:SUMMARY to split sections off into subarticles, such as this. Sherlock Holmes and pop culture is a notable enough topic that there are reliable sources available for this article. --Aude (talk) 11:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:SUMMARY does not exempt articles created under its guideline from conforming to other policies and guidelines. Otto4711 22:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but perhaps rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture. There are plenty of reliables sources commenting on the phenomenon of Sherlock Holmes in popular culture that it deserves an article based on that commentary. Sure, the article in its current state is not the ideal Wikipedia article, but there is no reason it needs to be wiped and started all over; everything in the article is at least sourceable to primary sources. On the other hand, merging and redirecting to Sherlock Holmes in other media may be an acceptable compromise. DHowell 06:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No topic "deserves" an article. Wikipedia articles are not entitlements. Otto4711 14:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or rename to Sherlock Holmes in popular culture as suggested above. --24.154.173.243 15:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. I have checked the edit histories of contributors and notice there are a fair number of new editors, with minimal edits, to this debate. If this occurs in future please indicate them with {{spa}}. User:Edtropolis is now indefinitely blocked. However, this is not a vote, and it is the weight of argument that must be considered. Although this seems a commendable subject, it is not, according to wikipedia's particular requirements, a notable commendable subject that can be shown as such with convincing verifiable sources. Although Bdushaw has put a coherent case, FrozenPurpleCube and B. Wolterding have pointed to considerations that outweigh it. There is no objection to valid information from this article being included in any other relevant articles. Tyrenius 01:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Stub on non-notable Linux distribution. Chealer 04:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I, of course, object to the deletion of this article. We may be a small linux distribution (no pun intended), but we are hardly non-notable. We have a small but dedicated development group. Deletion of this article will also require editing the pages of all the Psion PDAs (Psion 5, NetBook, Series 7, etc.) to remove the OpenPsion wikilink. In my opinion, it is valuable having these links so that those having such PDAs know that the linux OS is available to them. This distribution is unique to Psions, but it is also well known among those who have linux on ARM devices. There is value here; don't delete. Bdushaw 05:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You seem to be arguing
  1. that dedication implies notability;
  2. that virtue implies notability (so that Wikipedia should advertise the product to Psion PDA users);
  3. that an article should be kept to spare editors and 'bots the trouble of removing a few links.

  —SlamDiego_←T 05:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind about the logical dance you want. I say that anyone looking up the Psion PDAs on wikipedia may well like to know that linux can run on them - to say that this is "advertising a product" is one way to spin it, I suppose. I noted that the OpenPsion "distribution" has had a usefulness beyond Psions - it has been useful for most ARM PDAs. Why is it so important to delete the article? Where is the case that OpenPsion is "non-notable"? That seems an opinion and not an educated one. If it is a matter of developing the article some more I can do that, and encourage others to do the same. I noted on the wikipedia pages regarding linux distributions that there were few distributions designed for ARM cpus (and many linux distributions of less notablility than OpenPsion). I considered starting an article summarizing distributions for ARM cpus; OpenPsion would figure prominently there. It is a notable distribution for ARM cpus. Bdushaw 08:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than cast aspersions on my motivations (an uncivil, speculative personal attack), you should have just clarified your argument or replaced it a better one. —SlamDiego_←T 09:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its late and I am prone to be annoyed just now; so sorry. Seems to me you were overly cute rather than constructive. That's how it was received anyways. "virtue implies notability"? Let me pause for several minutes while I try to figure that one out... Better to ask some direct questions to --B. Wolterding 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)constructively get to the bottom of the issue. (an uncivil, speculative personal attack) is cutting both ways here now. Bdushaw 11:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to be moved by the apology which it is immediately followed by an attempt not merely to excuse but to vindicate the personal attack. I was, in fact, very direct.

So let's try this again, roundabout: Although even now you haven't told us why it would be helpful to Psion PDA users to know about this product, you seem to believe that it is because the product has some sort of virtue. But Wikipedia doesn't ordinarily accept virtue as sufficient to imply notability; doing so moves Wikipedia into deeper, murkier waters of prescription.

Unless you can show me how the issue of personal attacks ever was cutting both ways, I am removing myself from this discussion. —SlamDiego_←T 21:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go further here and say that Linux is the only way for older Psion PDAs to be usable in the context of 2007 and beyond. Both the Psion 7 and netbook have a unique form-factor and as such are noteable devices in their own right. Stevedicks 09:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that is so, how about adding a sentence or so at Psion? --B. Wolterding 14:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd like to state as well that deleting this page will keep us from contributing to the possibilities of continuing the life of these widespread Psion PDA's. I don't want to go into the advantages of the devices because it may cause a useless discussion. However, I do feel that wikipedia is a good source , also for 'non notable' things and should stay that way.

Victor

• Keep Quickie 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I am, actually, a bit confused by the arguments given above. By common consensus, Wikipedia is not meant to describe everything that is interesting or useful. It is meant to cover everything that is notable. The notability criteria specify what "notability" means in this context: There must be independent sources which cover the topic. That might be press coverage (press, not blogs), or books describing this software in detail, or similar. Unless such sources are provided, the topic just fails the criteria. Don't take this as a personal attack: That's the way we deal with all topics here. Currently, I don't see that OpenPsion is notable; maybe it will be one day, and then it deserves an article. By the way, Bdushaw, your comments above suggest that you are one of the authors of the software. In this case, you may have a conflict of interest, and should be very careful about editing the article. --B. Wolterding 13:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Keep. As per Bdushaw. I seem to find bad faith nominators as uncivilized. This article needs to be cleaned up though. It's still notable and Wikipedia's Bots doesn't have to do with removing links.--Edtropolis 13:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• it is perhaps a small, but unique Distro. And there aren't such few users that you could think... the 100th fork of debian without any big differents is perhaps unnotabily, but OpenPsion is the only Distro which works on the very widespread psions. Additionally, many people used the Psion as an entry for programming arm machines, for which this distro is still ideal. So: Keep -Mifritscher 13:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless any third-party reliable sources are provided to establish notability. Uniqueness is not an indicator of notability. WP:USEFUL is not a valid argument either. 220.227.179.4 14:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm seeing a problem here, in that the people who want to keep this article are not recognizing why their arguments are not convincing. There is no bad faith here, since the nominator is quite rightly concerned that there are many minor Linux distributions with articles on Wikipedia. I'm sorry, but Wikipedia isn't Distrowatch. Not every Linux distro gets a page no questions ask. The fact is, this article has no third-party sources, no establishment of actual notability as per WP:ORG. I'm sure many of the users of this distro who have spoken here think the distro is useful to them, but if nobody else has noticed, is it really that important? Perhaps not. And really, accusing a person of bad faith in a case like this? It's not going to strengthen your argument, it's just going to convince me that you don't even realize you don't have that much of one. Seriously, the best way to get an article kept is to provide real sources, not to say the nominator is in bad faith when that's not clearly so at all. There are cases where it is a problem, certainly. This isn't one of them. FrozenPurpleCube 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I do likely have a conflict of interest. Nevertheless... I've taken a look at notability and I think I see what the issue is now, so the nomination for deletion may have a point. However, let me argue otherwise: the Psion PDAs are old and the linux distribution for them is non-commercial. We are/were not likely to get the sort of press coverage, articles written, etc. as formally required for notability; but in this case I'd ask for some slack. Other similar articles (GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia; even the articles on the sundry Psion devices have no references...) suffer the same issue, but I don't think you could call them non-notable. A google search for "openpsion" (or "psilinux" the former name) produces endless hits, however; its just the usual material associated with opensource development - mail lists, web pages, etc. (There WERE several articles on linux on the newer NetBook Pro, a commercial device, but they seem to have disappeared now.) So (a) our fate is tied to an archaic PDA hardware; the distribution is uniquely Psion (but has proved useful for other ARM devices), (b) I argue that we should not be penalized (lack of references) for being non-commercial opensource, and, again, (c) there is still value here - anyone looking up Psion PDAs at this point is likely to want to know about a possible OS upgrade. I noted that one option was to merge the article into another more substantial one - that would be acceptable, but I couldn't say which article that would be (something like "linux on ARM devices"?) Bdushaw 18:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• And also... I note that Alan Cox was on our mailing list for some time until he bought a Nokia 770 (a commercial device with lots of references). Ergo, OpenPsion is a notable linux distribution.  :) Bdushaw 18:50, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me address the concerns you've expressed about these other articles. First off, it's pretty clear that the original nominator is going through and nominating several individual non-notable Linux distros. Take a look at Chealer's contribs. Do you seriously expect a nomination of every distro at once? That wouldn't be a good thing. It's obvious to me that a lot of them have been added without real thought or consideration of Wikipedia's principles. Probably no malice, but some thoughtlessness. Besides, this is an argument that's actually not highly respected, see WP:WAX for an explanation as to why, but it's basically, so what about those other articles, maybe they need to be deleted or improved as well. And giving your article some slack isn't a solution either. Yes, it is a handicap not being a major commercial distro, but is it worth compromising Wikipedia's principles of WP:V to cover your distro? And what about the tens, if not hundreds of thousands of other similar groups? Yeah, letting people know things is important, but there are limits. If you want to publicize your distro, then I suggest finding other avenues first. I wouldn't object to a bit in the section on Psion computers, and if there's an applicable section of the broader Linux article, it might be worth including there.

Finally, no, the presence of even as personally a notable person as Cox isn't proof of this distro's notability. I'm sure he belongs to a lot of mailing lists and does a lot of things. It'd be one thing if he wrote a book or article on the distro, or gave an interview, but it's doubtful that a primary source in this case would be acceptable as proof of notability. FrozenPurpleCube 19:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are basically right. My argument was that the other articles I listed are indeed notable - Familiar linux, Maemo are well known - but seem to fall into the same category as openpsion with lack of references. There is more to the story here than the strictly defined notability; I am searching for where that boundary is. I referred not to all the other articles in wikipedia with similar problems, but to articles that are very similar in nature to OpenPsion. Articles referring to linux on ARM devices. Because they are all opensource with informal development, they all lack solid references; I don't think such references exist. So what do we do about that? It seems unreasonable to delete all these articles, as they would be eventually under the criteria suggested here. Bdushaw 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article on psion is basically about the history of the Psion company; it sure seems to me that a discussion of OpenPsion linux does not really belong there. One option would be to include a few more sentences on each of the Psion PDA pages, but that seems rather redundant (some of the PDA pages can be combined, e.g. netbook and Series 7). What about creating the Linux on ARM Devices article, and merging Familiar linux, openzaurus, openpsion, maemo, etc. into one larger article? Then redirect openpsion, openzaurus, etc. to it. How about that? Bdushaw 20:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the smiley face (:)) that was tongue-in-cheek. Bdushaw 20:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know if they are notable or not, but if they aren't referenced, that IS a problem. It seems quite reasonable to me to delete them if they can't be sourced, as it's much more unreasonable to keep them when they aren't sourced. That's more of a problem than anything else. The issue of covering Linux on Arm devices is another issue, but it would probably be best to discuss it with the Linux Wikiproject and probably take it as a spin-off from the Linux kernel portability and supported architectures page. Which itself needs improvement, but that's another matter. FrozenPurpleCube 21:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Chealer has recently gone through most of the distribution articles at Comparison_of_Linux_distributions with various fixes. Most of those articles are completely unsourced stubs, hence would qualify as non-notable. So why does OpenPsion get the special treatment? Given the plethora of linux distributions (and articles about them), OpenPsion is at least uniquely identified with Psion devices. As I say, there is a larger issue here; Wikipedia does not seem likely to tolerate the deletion of 90% of the articles on linux distributions... But P.S. I see that many of these articles are indeed up for deletion. Bdushaw 22:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I was just about to point out to you, Chealer has indeed nominated many of those articles for deletion, so there's really no special treatment going on here. This article will be held to the same standards as any other. As for how it'll be received, it doesn't seem to have attracted much protest. FrozenPurpleCube 23:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me again... I've just been going over the Wikipedia policies for deletion and notability. I would first like to point out that when this article was first nominated for deletion, that it would have been helpful to state more clearly the reasons why. About half of this discussion above could have been avoided if we had had a more specific starting point; not all of us are versed in what "notable" means to Wikipedians (we should be, true, but you know...). I also point out that there was been no attempt to fix or correct the article before nominating for deletion, per policy. Before deleting, a preferred option is to merge, and indeed a consensus above seems to be to merge - where I don't know yet, but we would have been better off having a merge discussion prior to the delete discussion. Nor was there a warning about notability posted ahead of time. The process in nominating this article for deletion has been flawed, alas. I think I will post a message to Chealer asking him to include a better description of his reasons for nominating articles for deletion; a simple cut and paste blurb would suffice. Lastly, at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes, I noted "Programming languages are notable if somewhat widely used; Google is a reasonable test", and in other places where the number of google hits was accepted as a reason to justify notability. Openpsion gets 992 google hits; Psilinux 502 hits - does that then make it notable? Let's keep the article for now and work to merge it to an as-yet-undetermined more appropriate place. Bdushaw 02:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• No, the mere counting of Google hits does not establish notability. Rather, this "Google test" is discouraged as an argument in deletion discussions. --B. Wolterding 11:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a longer, more explicit articulation of the concerns would have been helpful. I try to at least link to the relevant policy page myself, but I suspect Chealer just decided to be brief because there are a fair number of these distros to go through. May be a case of a bit of haste in the face of a long and tedious task. Perhaps not ideal, but I'm not going to worry about it too much. If you want to suggest a more expansive description in the nomination, that's fine with me. Nor is it actually required to try to "fix" an article before nominating it. The steps in "Before nominating an AfD" are to consider, which I think if you're familiar with the work Chealer has done on nominating these articles (which started some while ago actually), is something I'm comfortable accepting was done. Certainly, it's worth looking for sources, and I hope Chealer did that, but I see no reason to assume this nomination was sufficiently flawed as to warrant any action being taken. Could it have been done better? I suppose, but nothing major was done wrong. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And no, I don't see a consensus to merge, nor do I see a reason to keep this article. Sorry, but you've not produced any third party sources, and the content of the article is such that IF it was determined that there was an appropriate place to put it, it'd be easy enough to recreate from scratch. Also the concept of a raw google-test has fallen into disfavor. Very few people will be swayed by them. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But hey, I do understand your concerns, and I'd like to commend you on your civility and reasonableness. A lot of times an editor of an article can get quite irate over a nomination, but you haven't done that. I hope I've explained things a bit better for you, and you understand the situation more clearly. If not, drop me a line on my talk page. FrozenPurpleCube 02:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am annoyed again, I am afraid. Chealer states that he is now done with his comprehensive review. He has left many, many articles on linux distributions that do not satisfy the criteria of notability as we have discussed above. I was with you all, and read the documentation, and listened to you, and thought I understood your position. Partly this was so that I could understand the policies of Wikipedia better. Those arguing for the deletion of the article stuck to policy, which is the proper thing to do. But now it comes to pass that indeed there was other, unstated criteria to determine notability - which seems mostly arbitrary. Chealer states on his Talk page: Bdushaw, the approach to correct the article is not useful when the issue is notability. There's nothing that can be done to the article that will increase the topic's notability. Which tells me that (a) the decision was preordained, and (b) the decision has been subjective. If there is to be a policy it has to be uniformly applied. If there are to be criteria for notability beyond what is stated in the Wikipedia policy pages, then they need to be stated. The decision to put this article up for deletion was NOT based on the strict notability criteria, but on someone's opinion. I am partly annoyed here not so much for the OpenPsion page, but as a matter of policy, procedure, and fairness. Chealer apparently has no intention of putting the articles: GPE Palmtop Environment, Familiar Linux, OpenZaurus, OPIE user interface, Maemo, Qtopia up for deletion - Why? What is the policy? What is it that deems those pages notable, but OpenPsion not notable? The notability argument seems to be one of convenience to support an opinion.

Going back to basic principles, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Is the OpenPsion article encyclopedic? Bdushaw 19:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps Chealer is just tired of doing the task, and not an assumption that the remaining articles meet any standards or not. Not having seen any statement by anybody on them, I decline to assume anything. I don't know about Chealer's words, I'm not sure what is being said there, it honestly doesn't quite make sense to me. (Though I don't read anything into it, it just seems unclear). I think what it means is the problem is not in the contents of the article, but with the lack of third-party sources. But I could be wrong, so perhaps you should ask for a clarification. If you feel those other distros might well need to be deleted, feel free to nominate them yourself. Or heck, I will. FrozenPurpleCube 21:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to beat up anyone really, but I do want to have a consistent policy. It seems so very arbitrary - note that Chealer has recent edit history on Familiar Linux...its not like he didn't have time to look at it. (Nominating such articles as Familiar Linux and Maemo for deletion will likely create a firestorm...!! But, yes, they should be sourced.) Anyways, I have scrounged around and listed several references to the article now. Per my comment above, most of the references occur at times when there is a commercial involvment (Calcaria.net or Psion's recent look at linux). Also adding to the "notability" criteria (WP:CORP) is that OpenPsion now has a 9 year lifespan and is certainly international, if ethereal, in character.

AFD is arbitrary, because it's run by human beings, not machines, and there's little chance of a systematic coverage of any subject. (In fact, this is generally applicable to Wikipedia as well) If you want to nominate the other articles for the same reason, then more power to you, but I wouldn't assume anything about it not being done by Chealer. It's inconsistent sure, but only because we're human beings. And it's more a question of practice than policy. I think you'll rarely say "But we don't need sources for this" getting much support anywhere. And speaking of your sources, I'm not seeing much coverage of "OpenPsion" in them, but rather "Psion's involvement with Linux" which is a slightly different (though related subject). Which might support a merger to the article on Psion and coverage there, but I'm not convinced that this particular distro is notable from it. FrozenPurpleCube 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References 6-9 are as you say. The others are not. Calcaria.net is where OpenPsion started, then we were Psilinux, then we were OpenPsion - this is the same organization. Other references to linux on psion link to OpenPsion. These references are honest; they are the sorts of things you've been insisting on, but now you are dismissing them? Bdushaw 00:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not saying they are unacceptable, and I am not dismissing them out of hand, I'm looking at them and seeing that they aren't quite about this subject. Or they have other problems. Note how I said "not much" which is different from "not any" . I'll review them all directly for you. Source 1 is more about the reaction of Microsoft to competition with Linux on Bluetooth. Yes, PSION is mentioned, and the Calcaria Linux7K project *but* the focus of the article is not primarily on it. Source 2 is practically a duplicate of the first one, just abbreviated. Source 3 is a list of speakers at a symposium. An article on the speaker at the symposium would be acceptable. A primary source like that is not demonstrative of anything. Source 4 is a brief news blurb on a site of uncertain provenance. Not a great source. Source 5 is a personal webpage, which makes it self-published source. Not to mention, it's primarily a review of the hardware with a brief sentence of "It can run Linux". None of these sources are really that great. The ZDNET ones are the best, since they are from a reliable source, but I still don't see the focus being sufficiently OpenPSION (whatever the name), though I do agree they do cover the subject in part. I would certainly be willing to use them in an article on Linux on Mobile devices, or even a section of the PSION article discussing Linux on their devices, but I'm just not convinced that they establish the separate notability of OpenPSION very well. They're better than nothing, but they aren't quite enough to convince me. FrozenPurpleCube 00:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We are not going to agree, but I appreciate your patience and efforts in the matter. Bdushaw 06:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I haven't even voted yet (so it appears on the voting talley table, even though deletion discussions are not a poll). Bdushaw 20:06, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Its signficant as essentially the only software left for Psion, and also in the broader context of the Psion/Symbian/Linux will-they won't they history. Could be folded into the Psion article perhaps but it seems worth keeping AlanCox 00:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - For all the reasons given above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.81.223.66 (talk • contribs)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The arguments for keeping are all based on substituting a kewlness for notability. —the Ghost of Adrian Mineha! _{hold seance} at 23:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless someone can point me towards another project that has a working version of Linux on these devices, this project is novel enough to warrent its own article. Many people I know only purchase devices like this that have good Linux support. And the article has reliable sources. John Vandenberg 01:24, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have created a new category for "linux on PDAs" (not quite sure how to give the link for that here; see the bottom of the page for OpenPsion). Per the discussions concerning sourcing and notability above, the articles in the category show a sad, sad state of affairs. I've given some words at the top of the category to encourage development of references and notability; but I am unsure of Wikipedia policy about putting text at the top of a category. Cheers, Bdushaw 08:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you want to do is Category:Linux on PDAs. basically just add a : before the category. FrozenPurpleCube 14:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. A lot of references have been added since the AfD was opened. I browsed through them, and just wanted to note that in my point of view they are not sufficient to establish notability. Many are self-published sources in some respect; and most of them do not even contain the term "OpenPsion". In fact, I found that term only in #2, in a link. --B. Wolterding 15:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: In my opinion notability means also that is worthwhile to notice. That is exactly what this article 'OpenPsion' is aiming at.

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lnx4Win (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Notability to come. Chealer 04:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:NOTE.--Edtropolis 13:54, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, seems not to meet notability criteria. Carlosguitar 20:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 03:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Notability to come. Chealer 04:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - subject is WP:NN and article provides no WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as of June 2007, this article fails notability criteria. Carlosguitar 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Windows XP and Mac OS X v10.4 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

This article, in its various forms, has never been coherent and encyclopedic. Its content, for some months, has just been a spurious metric (some dudes, using their own arbitrary taxonomy which isn't even sketched in the article, gave 557 points to XP and 586 points to OS X 10.4). The article survived previous nominations on the theory that someone might make something worthwhile of the article, but no one has, even after goalposts were put on the discussion page. If some party ever does create a decent article, they can do it out of mainspace, then show it to an admin before relaunch. In the meantime, it's time to save the users. —TheGhostOfAdrianMineha 04:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no hope of ever becoming encyclopedic. AlistairMcMillan 14:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete While I don't have anything against comparison pages per se, comparing just two individual OS versions is not appropriate for Wikipedia. That sets up the wrong tone. FrozenPurpleCube 14:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Whilst it should no doubt be possible to create a good Windows/MacOS comparison -- Comparison of Windows and Linux, whilst not flawless, is a perfect example of what to strive for -- the current article as it stands has no reason to exist. The only content is a description of XvsXP.com, and the article title for some reason focuses on one version of Mac OS and and old version of Windows. If our eventual aim if the page was kept would be to rewrite the content from scratch (based on the Windows v Linux article) and move the page to the correct (versionless) title, we might as well just delete this page and create the new article from scratch. -- simxp (talk) 18:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — Yep, it had it's chance. But nobody has made any attempt to improve the article (it needs sources, notability, cleanup), so it has to be deleted. *Cremepuff222* 00:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — not developed enough and (in prose form) not the kind of article we need on Wikipedia (a table might be acceptable). Either way, if someone really wants to write an article on this subject they would probably be best starting anew. Cedars 02:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. -/- Warren 03:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, It isn't likely that this will become encyclopedic. Miss Minerva 05:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, wow. this is worthless.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.217.99.182 (talk • contribs)
• Delete. No information here worth keeping. A single website's analysis of these operating systems does not warrant an encyclopedic entry. Someguy1221 21:41, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, comparing apples and oranges doesn't make for an encyclopedia article. --Android Mouse 21:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Closed as Keep, Bad faith nomination, nominator as been blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet of banned user JB196 (with no prejudice to re-nomination) SirFozzie 17:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major Impact Wrestling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No references that appear in third party publications which are independent of the subject. Importance as a company questioned. Do not think it passes guidelines of WP:CORP. ----La Parka Your Car 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Seems notable, as like other international wrestling organizations.--Edtropolis 15:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• comment What seems notable about it? Also, it is not an international wrestling organization; it is a locally-run, run-of-the-mill organization that runs little bitty shows solely in Australia, so its not international.----La Parka Your Car 15:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can't find anything to show what makes this organization notable. TJ Spyke 04:29, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep without prejudice to renomination Nominator blocked as sockpuppet of banned editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:52, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Bad faith nom JB196, 'nuff said. — Moe ε 15:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sr13 02:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Neither Roderick Brookes nor Pro Wrestling Warriors are notable. Very very very few Google hits that are not from Wikipedia, wikia, or web forums. [3] - Pro Wrestling Warriors appears to be some sort of fantasy wrestling site. [4] - fiction.Corvus cornix 03:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As a reminder to all participants, please sign your comments with ~~~~. —C.Fred (talk) 14:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Roderick Brookes is an amazing wrestler, big in the indies, I hear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BuyAMountain (talk • contribs).

because everyone knows if it doesnt show up on google, it doesn't exist? ... :/ —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

Please read WP:RS and provide multiple reliable sources for him. And please explain why all of the references to him are fictional. Corvus cornix 04:25, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there's No Cure for Google Addiction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

Like I said, provide references. Corvus cornix 05:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roderick Brookes. Because the Fourth Wall Wasn't Enough. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.253.208.92 (talk • contribs).

• Strong delete. Per the edit box reminder, "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." This article provides no reliable sources. It hovers right near speedy deletion criterion A7 in my mind, since an assertion of notability ought to be backed up with sources. —C.Fred (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No WP:RS. --Evb-wiki 15:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• This should be a speedy delete. It's a direct copy from a wikia page that pertains to fictional fantasy wrestling. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.176.85.30 (talk • contribs) 20:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • The problem is, Wikia is likely under GFDL also, so it's not copyvio, and works of fiction are not inherently a cause for speedy deletion. That said, what's the link to the Wikia page? —C.Fred (talk) 21:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • No Cure for Deletion! --69.149.118.24 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I found the pages for both Brookes and PWW at the eWrestling Encyclopedia. Note that buried at the bottom of the PWW article, it admits that PWW is a work of fiction. My recommendation of a strong delete stands. I now clarify that this is a non-notable character in a non-notable game world/fiction realm. —C.Fred (talk) 21:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:13, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. E-feds and e-wrestlers are not notable. -- Oakster  Talk  12:26, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per Oakster. Nikki311 01:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Walton^talk 18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

University of St Andrews Liberty Club (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

I don't believe this club meets WP:ORG. No significant third-party coverage that I could find. FrozenPurpleCube 02:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. huji—TALK 03:27, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it is part of a category about clubs and societies at that university (which I have visited before on two occasions), and the category has just two total articles.--h i s ^{s p a c e} _{r e s e a r c h} 10:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete student group at a single school, and no reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with University of St. Andrews.--Edtropolis 13:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Edtroplis, it is not notable enough to be put in a separate article, but enough to be mention in the UNIVERSITY's article--JForget 22:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you can find sources for it, that might be worthwhile, though I'm not at all convinced it's a good idea. FrozenPurpleCube 22:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 11:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Please don't merge this with the university page. The university will have hundreds of student societies - a recently created one with 100 members isn't that significant. If we start mentioning all of these in the university article, it will be a frightful mess. Either keep this, delete it, or merge it into some article on St Andrew's University student societies. I don't care, just not the main article.--Sandy Donald 11:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unless third-party sources mentioning the society can be found Lurker 11:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and also note Globalisation Institute related article.--MacRusgail 19:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP merged within G-Shock - Nabla 02:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non notable product. ~ Wikihermit 00:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I got about 1.4 million Google hits, and it is a real product, but I'm not sure if it's notable. Astrovega 00:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I did a Google search before nominating, but I saw no real notability. ~ Wikihermit 00:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps this should be merged with G-Shock, else very very weak keep. Definitely a notable watch design, influential and iconic, but a bunch of articles about each of its little sub-designs and offshoots seems a bit much. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with G-Shock as it has not enough information to be presented as a separate article. huji—TALK 03:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - ... and regarding notability, the only reviews or ratings I've found so far are these and this. huji—TALK 03:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with G-Shock, even if more information is assembled. Inclusion is great, but the tree shouldn't have ${\displaystyle \aleph _{0}}$ leaves. —SlamDiego_←T 04:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. Note that it is part of a list of models with other Wikipedia entries, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-Shock#Models.2FSeries. Guroadrunner 06:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. As per ↑.--Edtropolis 13:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete. Peacent 02:05, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All World Final Fantasy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

No third-party, non-trivial sources to establish the notability of this website (per WP:N and WP:WEB). hbdragon88 03:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Maxamegalon2000 05:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It seems like a decent amount of work has been put into this article (although that alone doesn't make an article fabulous). The writing is coherent and gets to the point. Earthere 05:32, 16 June 2007 (UTC)Earthere[reply]
• Delete per nom. No effort has been made to show the subject satisfies notability per WP:WEB, no reliable sources cited. And do we honestly need a history of ever "version" the site has existed under? -- Kesh 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:WEB and WP:V. As for the assertation that the article "gets to the point", I disagree: the whole article is chock-full of nuggets like "AWFF vs X111 vs FFMO - A failed attempt by FFXFan to engage three forums in an online battle on the PC game Unreal Tournament." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom - Cordless Larry 21:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete — "Well-written" and "time" are not reasons for inclusion. The article doesn't have any media coverage whatsoever, and it doesn't follow the criteria at WP:WEB. *Cremepuff222* 00:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been added to the list of video game deletions. QuagmireDog 03:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per previously stated reasons. Fails WP:WEB, WP:RS and WP:V. DarkSaber2k 11:58, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Lack of secondary sources, independent verifiability. Wickethewok 18:03, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Devoid of any secondary source establishing its notability. Kariteh 19:06, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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