Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 April 30 April >

Purge server cache

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 (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 22:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bloody Fun Day[edit]

Bloody Fun Day (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable flash game; the sources are all blogs or similar; could not establish notability from a reliable source through Googling  Chzz  ►  23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - My initial reaction was "Oh brother, yet another browser flash game." But surprisingly, there is coverage in reliable sources. It's reviewed in Wired, and actually was also reviewed in dead tree press. -- Whpq (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw that the Wired piece was a blog (as indicated at the top) and thus thought it would not be a reliable source. Is that incorrect? Because the dead tree press reference is really a very quick passing mention in an editorial - not even an entire paragraph. Do you think that these two establish notability?  Chzz  ►  05:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's a mistake. See Wired (magazine) and Wired News for more information on why it's a reliable source. You may also be interested in WP:BLOGS. Blogs can be reliable if they're related to publications with a solid track record. - Mgm|(talk) 10:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Mgm said. Blog in this context is really what would be called a "column" in traditional newspapers excpect it doesn't sound as hip or cool. AS for the VUE article, you should read it again. The entire article is about the game. It isn't a passing mention. -- Whpq (talk) 10:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think in the context of an online flash game, websites like Kotaku and Jayisgames are reliable sources. So, I'd say this has sufficient sourcing to pass the notability test. Robofish (talk) 06:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If policy arguments can be made, I'd happily withdraw - however, WP:BLOGS is not policy, it's just a proposal. As regards the above keep, I am unaware of the reliability of sources being dependent on context. As I say, I'm happy to be corrected, if someone can point me to the relevant policy etc. that supports keeping it.  Chzz  ►  03:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think WP:BLOGS is being pointed out here as an official policy or guideline. At least I am not. But the point that is being put across is that something that is called a "Blog" in an established publication such as Wired is a very different animal than WHPQ's blog on games. -- Whpq (talk) 11:57, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Game seems to have received sufficient reception, backed up by reliable sources which allowed it to pass the Good article review. Salavat (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Desiderio[edit]

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

Non-verifiable article. Although the assertion of notability is made through junior national championships in equestrian events (which may fall WP:ATHLETE nonetheless), there are no reliable sources to back up the claims. Accordingly, the general notability guidelines are also not met. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - No coverage found to meet the general notability guidelines. I checked on the USEF site with their membership search. A search for her shows she is a member. However, clicking on the link for FEI information shows none. I cross-checked those results by going to the FEI site and searching there. She is not registered for international competition. As such, the conclusion is that she additionally does not meet WP:ATHLETE as she is not competing at the highest level for her sport. -- Whpq (talk) 15:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't meet notability guidelines. Although competing in junior level national events is cool, it is not the highest level of equestrian sport. Also, the lack of references in the article and online poses verifiability concerns. Dana boomer (talk) 19:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AHA (Arabian Horse Assn) confirms this. Junior events, was based on age group--at a National Event; therefore, at the time, for the age, it was the highest level. Nowhere in the article does it say "professional." USEF is not the Arabian Horse Assn, but to compete in AHA events, one must be dually registered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bdesiderio (talk • contribs) 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — Bdesiderio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • National events are not world events; that's the scope that WP:ATHLETE requires for notability. As a result, she fails specific notability as well as general. —C.Fred (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Randoms[edit]

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

Band which is not yet notable and fails WP:MUSIC on all counts. dramatic (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. dramatic (talk) 23:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to prove notability unless reliable sources can be found. -download | sign! 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know of these guys, and there is nothing out there yet that would allow them to pass the WP:MUSIC criteria.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey - admittedly I'm new here, so I'm still not totally clear about what counts as notable or not (so I won't complain if this page does get deleted), but these guys won the biggest round of what is probably New Zealands most famous music contest, and they're going to be fronting for the Datsuns (one of NZ's biggest bands) on their tour later this year. They've also been played several times on national radio (including a playing on their entire second album on its release)--ScribbleStick (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Scribble, if you have a looksie at WP:MUSIC#Criteria for musicians and ensembles you'll see there are 12 criteria, of which a band only needs to meet one of them. Keep in mind that any claim has to be backed up with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. #9 stated you have to have won or placed in a major music competition. While the Smokefreerockquest is a notable comp, they neither won, nor got into the finals, so they miss out on that one. Them going on tour in the future doesn't count either, as Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even if the tour has happened, it still wouldn't count as notable for The Randoms since notability isn't inherited, they have to stand on their own feet, not off of the success of others. Of course keeping in mind, while it's OK to make a claim about something, Wikipedia does require you to verify that claim. I hope this all helps you in some small way. If you've got any more questions please feel free to drop by my talk page. Cheers.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 01:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Points taken. How about this - they were subjects of an article in a notable media source [1]. I think there are other articles like this somwhere. Let me know if that would help and I'll look for some.--ScribbleStick (talk) 01:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Eastern and Bays Courier is a community giveaway paper, and these tend to have somewhat lower editorial standards than, say, The Auckland Herald. They are usually not regarded as Reliable Sources, especially if they are the only source. (Granted, the article you linked to is at least based on an interview rather than a press release. Interesting contradiction that our article says they came second and the paper says they won. The definitive source for that would be the SFRQ website, which doesn't bother listing last year's regional results.)dramatic (talk) 02:47, 30 April 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tinternet[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not Urban Dictionary. This unsourced article about a random comedian's catchphrase does not warrant its own article. Little Professor (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom, non-notable neologism. ~EdGl ★ 23:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've found a source in the Manchester Evening News, "Sayings on t'internet":[2]. But this belongs over at Wiktionary really:[3]. Fences and windows (talk) 23:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Non-notable term. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete Term is already listed on Wikiquote (unreferenced) and Wiktionary (without Peter Kay getting a mention). Not enough material to write an encyclopedic article available. - Mgm|(talk) 10:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 22:19, 3 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Beauty Killer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Beauty Killer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Another recreation of a previously deleted non-notable future album. Has been tagged but still no reliable, third-party, sources can be found. Fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums & WP:CRYSTAL.

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Hate Music.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No reliable sources exist. Fences and windows (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. The only sources this article has is Star's MySpace and Twitter. Lacks substantial coverage from sources independent of the subject, therefore not meeting the criteria in WP:NM. — Σxplicit 01:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Comment): Can't this be speedy'd considering that this is its fourth nomination? Anyway, all the "sources" are the singer's MySpace. Not a good sign. SKS2K6 (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2009 (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 Jeffree Star, or else one of the other venues proposed below. Content may not meet notability criteria alone but could be used elsewhere, what to move and where is a matter for a talk page discussion. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate Music[edit]

I Hate Music (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable, non-charting song. Very few reliable sources (actually, I think they're all primary sources). By the same token, I'm nominating all these other songs by Jeffree Star:

Heart Surgery Isn't That Bad... (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Starstruck (Jeffree Star song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Lollipop Luxury (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Prisoner (Jeffree Star song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) SKS2K6 (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge. There are a smattering of sources mentioning some of his releases [4], but probably not enough to establish notability for any individual release. He does have some notability as a musical artist, so all the sourced content can be merged into the discography. Fences and windows (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read Wikipedia:Merge and delete. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all — Non-notable songs. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the artist article bassed on the comment by Fences and windows. If there are sources mentioning his releases the content would be appropriate there. Notability is only a way of determining whether something warrants a separate aticle. Also, your nomination reasoning doesn't actually apply to Heart Surgery Isn't That Bad... since it was a charted song. WP:BADCHARTS suggests the chart is not reliable, but it still is a chart, it's something that deserves further clarification in the nomination. - Mgm|(talk) 09:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: WP:CHARTS specifically indicates that retailer-specific charts are not to be used. (I'm assuming the reasoning being that any notably selling songs/albums would be shown in the national charts.) As the charts on the page show, the song only charted on iTunes dance charts, and it failed to make the Billboard charts anywhere, suggesting non-notability. I mean, it placed in iTunes dance (which is a small chart) and iTunes+ dance (which is even smaller because it's only for songs with higher bitrates). SKS2K6 (talk) 15:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: If the only "chart" a song makes it on is one that is proscribed by WP:BADCHARTS or by WP:Record charts in general, I think describing it as a "non-charting" song is quite appropriate.—Kww(talk) 16:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Jeffree Star. If there's a notable artist, why would you want to delete? NSONGS suggests merging, and that is appropriate here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all, but to Jeffree Star's Discography. Reasoning per User:Xymmax and others, buit i think a better destination.YobMod 10:10, 7 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commandate of Samana Cay[edit]

Commandate of Samana Cay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This micronation appears to be a hoax. Searches for sources return no results except for this website, which is not a reliable source. Cunard (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even if it's not a hoax, like most micronations, it "exists" only in its creator's mind, and is no different from a private club or organization. No assertion of any notability, no reliable sources, and so on, and so on. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 22:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree, probably more of a fantasy than an intentional hoax, still WP:MADEUP. No independent references. Delete without mercy and warn the creator. Likely will crop up again. Drawn Some (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not notable fantasy, without reliable sources, simply crop.--Yopie 23:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
  • "Keep" as growing and will become known. Plus, there is another source: not a huge site, but looked good to me.Flopo1 (talk) 00:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Will become known" fails WP:CRYSTAL. And your source isn't reliable. p.s. I found an amusing account of a failed "colonisation" of this island:[5]. p.p.s. Looks nice from the air:[6] Fences and windows (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - They have 14 cities and a population of 10. Err. I mean notability cannot be established via reliable sources. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  04:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as said by Oxguy3 in the discussion page, it is highly unlikely to be a hoax.Flopo1 (talk) 02:43, 3 May 2009 (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. The sources are questionable at best. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Adams (filmmaker)[edit]

George Adams (filmmaker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ignoring the obvious glowing content masquerading as information, article is missing reliable sources to confirm notability of a creative individual. IMDB credits are minor at best, and a simple news search didn't reveal any articles about the individual apart from the minor publication already listed. tedder (talk) 22:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment it appears most of those are either (a) a different George Adams- it's a very generic name or (b) are press releases. Can you find specific articles from reliable sources to indicate notability? I couldn't. The IMDB profile doesn't indicate much either. tedder (talk) 06:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I have a bit of time and will re-visit the article to do some major sandblasting. Either I improve it and find sourcing, or I will return here and change my iVote. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you revist, you will see that the hyperbole and advert have been removed and sourcing has begun. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The sourcing is still poor. The FanCast page has no content, the Spotlight On Awards are not notable, and the rest of the sources cover his films, not him. There are still no reliable sources that have Adams as the subject. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
*Note that the above user has been voting "strong keep" in numerous afds without ever providing any reason. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
and now he's going around adding the exact same rationale to those votes. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:29, 4 May 2009 (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. This is certain to be renominated if sourcing doesn't materialize. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 21:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic moms network[edit]

Holistic moms network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No reliable sources cover this organization substantially enough. Whip it! Now whip it good! 19:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:03, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 22:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and improve. Any organisation with 25,000 web hits and 350 news hits has got to be notable. Did you search for sources before nominating? e.g. Denver Post:[7]; Washington Times:[8]. There are stacks of stories about local chapters. Not my cup of tea at all, but the article needs improving, not deleting. This is obvious propaganda, but would make a good EL for info about them from their point of view:[9] Fences and windows (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Funny, I did google prior to nominating this for AFD, and there weren't that many reliable sources, all I found were mainly blogs, but maybe it's because I didn't look hard enough. If it is notable enough, then I agree it should stay. Personally, I really could care less about the merits of the organization itself, I'm able to keep POV out of this. Whip it! Now whip it good! 04:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Plenty of third-party sources available. They have chapters from coast-to-coast and have held national conferences for their members. Article just needs improvement.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apparently there are enough sources. I too was a little surprised, because this sort of article is is usually difficult to source DGG (talk) 21:19, 6 May 2009 (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) 01:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kongcrete[edit]

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

While the subject of the article may be considered notable at one point, the band and album have currently received, at most, trivial coverage. Ibaranoff24 (talk) 21:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete Two factors: one, the article contains no real coverage of the actual topic or indication of why it's notable or how it satisfies WP:ALBUM; two, the sources given only mention the album en passant. / /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:06, 29 April 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Savage Messiah (band)[edit]

Savage Messiah (band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod - prod tag removed by article's author without explanation. Original prod reason was "lacks coverage in 3rd party sources." I would add that there is no real assertion of notabiliby, except that they have been signed. The only source is their MySpace. Delete. Dawn Bard (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (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.

Kelby Shults alleged harrasment incident[edit]

The result was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view for privacy reasons but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. 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. Advise renaming--discuss that on the article talk page DGG (talk) 21:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sijekovac massacre[edit]

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

Propaganda supported by only one Serbian reference. Reports concluded it false. [12] PRODUCER (talk) 21:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:. notable with plenty of references, see google book search. As to reports concluding the massacre as false, these reports in turn add notability and their findings should be included in the article. In my opinion there is no good or valid reason for deletion. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:Delete.Weak keep. There are few reliable sources either way. Simply pointing at a Google Book search is no use! Are those books reliable sources? What do they actually say? This is the report by Helsinki Watch reporting that they doubted there had been a massacre: [13]. A NATO page mentions a report in the Serb press claiming it as a massacre:[14], and another has this quote: "Savo Strbac, Director of the Veritas Information Center, rejected the suspicions that the 18 bodies of children found at Sijekovac were Serb children from Vukovar, as only a few children missing from Vukovar had been registered with the Veritas Center".[15] Milosevic repeated the claim at his war crimes tribunal:[16], and the Bosnian Serb government did too:[17]. In the absence of clear reports in reliable sources, I support deletion. Fences and windows (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is better now it has some sources and is renamed, thanks CB. Fences and windows (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Neutral Haven't seen any reliable source yet. Journalist 007 (talk) 13:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Changed my vote after last improvements. Journalist 007 (talk) 19:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: just rewrote the article: added information; added references; linked references; and rewrote parts that seemed opinionated. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That looks much better. The article should be renamed to Sijekovac case as there is still no validation to support massacre title. Renamed article and changed my vote to Neutral. Journalist 007 (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, good thinking in renaming the article. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 20:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, seems even-handed, and material casting doubt on the truth of the allegations has been correctly included. Cannot see any further reasons for deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. I generally have prejudices about controversial massacres and similar incidents, so I'm very far from voting keep, but the references clearly establish notability. Producer, if you don't like the article, try to improve it the other way by adding references about these reports you mentioned. —Admiral Norton (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2009 (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 and cleanup. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defense Support of Civil authorities[edit]

Defense Support of Civil authorities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested, thus listed here - Unencylopedic opinion piece on the merits of civil defence authorities Passportguy (talk) 21:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article is pretty horribly formatted and has serious issues, but I'm not sure about deletion. Which part of WP:NOT would you invoke? It doesn't seem to be opinion. Being poorly written isn't really a reason for deletion. Gigs (talk) 21:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Comment Obvious essay, but the topic might indeed be worthy of an article. Perhaps some wikification & inline citations could assist verification. The concern here is that this is all original research, especially given that it looks like a cut & paste of someone's term paper. If no improvement towards overcoming WP:OR concerns, count this as a weak delete. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. The current content is too detailed to be encyclopedic, and the core concepts and references would help improve existing articles that cover the same topic: either Military operations other than war (U.S.-centric article) and/or Military aid to the civil power (more international). Extra redirects might be needed to cover more of the combinations I found on Google: Military/Defense Support/Aid/Assistance/Operations To/For Civil Authorities/Community/Power. - Pointillist (talk) 23:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC) - see updated !vote/comment below - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - I have gone through and condensed the article to its key points and improved the tone. The article still needs work, but I'd ask that it be given a second look. DSCA is a key component of a number of large-scale disasters. It garnered the most attention during Hurricaine Katrina. As it continues to be used, it may be referenced in articles about future disasters. I think it is important to have an article that explains this resource.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but needs more explicit detailed sourcing, and expansion. There should be some discussion of specific incidents--or at least links.DGG (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after improvements by SharkxFanSJ [well done!], but provide specific inline citations per DGG's !vote, and merge the "History" section into Military aid to the civil power#United States. Use the MACP article for the general historical/constitutional/international picture vs. the DSCA article to detail current arrangements in the U.S. - Pointillist (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leslie Leigh & Co.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Leslie Leigh & Co. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The notability of this article has not been established, and the sources remain unclear. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. There is no notability at all for this company, as far as I can see through my Google glasses. Besides, the article is full of weasels and peacocks, and tries to establish notability by having a famous horse graze on the grass of a property it sold--please. Drmies (talk) 21:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:CORP and is un-referenced spam. Also is unverifiable through reliable references. Drawn Some (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No sources refer to this company. Delete as spam. Fences and windows (talk) 03:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable company. Iowateen (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (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. Based upon lack of in-depth coverage, even in Russian (which resulted in their article also being deleted) – Toon(talk) 00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ibrahim Yaji[edit]

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

I've removed the PROD on this, as the talkpage comment implies that it is contested. This artist appears to fail the GNG. A brief google search only turns up self published stuff like here, facebook youtube etc. There is enough assertion of notability for it to not be speediable either. --GedUK  20:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hello! There have been a great discussion about my page on the Russian version of Wikipedia, and at the end people came to an opinion that the page has the right to be published because I gave a lot of links to articles about it.

I understand that you could not find a lot about me on Google search, and that is because I live in Russia, and the Russian Google search with my name in Russian Ибрагим Яжи, gives more results.

Please check out the discussion on the end of this page [20]

Sorry for keeping silence for a long time, actually I was very busy with the Russian edition, and discussion, also having my diploma process in Moscow conservatory. --Ibrahim Yaji (talk) 23:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Finally the Russian article was deleted after a long discussion. We carefully analyzed all sources, including Russian and Arabic, however did no find enough notability to be included in the Wikipedia. Sorry, Ibrahim, I believe some day you will be famous and somebody will write article about you, but not at this moment. --RedAndr (talk) 18:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The article in the Russian magazine was all I could find other than videos, blogs and appearance listings, although one is a TV interview[21] - Ibrahim, what is the channel and date? As there isn't significant coverage of Ibrahim or his work in reliable sources, I'm leaning towards deleting. Sorry. Fences and windows (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2009 (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 procedural close for reasons given below: this AFD appears to be an attempt to continue the controversy, so (if for no other reason than IAR) closing to reduce problems for the encyclopedia in general. Nyttend (talk) 14:33, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Art controversy[edit]

Wikipedia Art controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

non notable controversy. Hytje (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Hytje (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 23:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete. Has not been covered in any reliable, published sources, as evidenced by Google and Google News searches for the article title.--Unscented (talk) 20:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No opinion on the deletion, but that's a horrible argument. The correct search is "Wikipedia Art". --NE2 20:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oops. I guess that works better in some cases than in others. I'll change my !vote to weak keep, as NE2 has revealed several sources, many of which might meet WP:RS.--Unscented (talk) 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • undecided. There's a lot of press, and not one of them is "unreliable" - many of them are in fact used as reliable sources throughout wikipedia (myartspace, rhizome, techdirt). it seems a standard for artists though is mainstream press, and we've not yet seen that. where i'm undecided is the fact that the "controversy" is only seen as the domain dispute. this whole thing, including the original page, is part of the "controversy." i think the framing of it is biased. either delete it or cover the whole story. or put it on one of or both of the artists' pages as a work. i say leave it up for a few weeks, just in case the mainstream does pick it up, and if it doesn't, then delete and move it to Kildall and Stern's pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.200.95 (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has been covered, a Google News search for wikipediaart.org brings up references and there are references in the article as well. As NE2 points out, Googling the title of the article in quotes is not the proper research tactic. If there are other good reasons to delete bring them forward but the nominating reason is fundamentally flawed. Drawn Some (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the exact same reason I declined the {{prod}} on this. To the "no reliable sources" guy above me, will repeated coverage in the press of five countries do for a start? – iridescent 22:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP This is ridiculous. Just because if doesn't fit into someones little tidy view of the world doesn't make it not noteworthy. What is going on here? Do the editors on Wikipedia just like to fight. I do not understand all the divisiveness.

    Sometimes trying to do something on here is impossible unless you make the few elite happy. Shamefull! Artintegrated (talk) 22:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per Iridescent. It's not ridiculous, though, Artintegrated: there are good reasons why editors shy away from Wikipedia articles about Wikipedia, and the tension between those who primarily create content and those who primarily destroy it is an effective mechanism for keeping our articles relevant and verifiable. It's an evolutionary process that works well for us.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 23:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing to Merge - there is nothing to indicate that this article has reason to exist on its own. The sourced content can be merged to the articles about the people involved with this "controversy". Should later events show that there is indeed substant enough coverage of a "controversy", an article can be created then. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC) delete - at this point, it seems a pretty innocuous and trivial dispute no different than thousands of others entering the legal system every day. Should the legal points later prove to be significant in case law, THEN an article can be created. WP:NOTNEWS -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That, on the other hand, is a ridiculous argument. This is not an article about case law, for god's sake! This is a part of the History of Wikipedia series; the correct comparator would be Siegenthaler incident or Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia. – iridescent 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm still somewhat undecided here, but I would point out that this is far less notable than those 2 articles; both of those have significant coverage in major mainstream and non-internet-only sources. This has so far only been covered in blogs and online sources. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • De Telegraaf has certainly covered it – it may not be showing up in Google as it's in Dutch. – iridescent 23:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Making case law is not the only reason to keep an article, but it would be ONE reason to keep it. If this "controversy" involved any organization other than Wikipedia it would have been laughed out with a speedy delete. This is a prime example of navel gazing self importance. -- The Red Pen of Doom 23:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're arguing against a straw man of your own construction. The actual argument for keeping, as already presented, is that the subject has received in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the subject — in other words: that it is notable, per Wikipedia:Notability. You want to argue against it? Don't construct straw men, and actually address the argument made. That argument is based upon assertions that there are multiple sources, that they have identifiable authors with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy, that they are independent of the subject, and that they document the subject in depth with more than a passing mention. Those are where any grounds for counterargument would be found. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I dont see any straw man. If this "controversy" were something happening to Microsoft, or Ford or The United States Government or the Catholic Church instead of Wikipedia, this is no doubt in my mind that this article would have been speedy deleted as trivial. "Significant coverage in 3rd party sources" is a requirment for an article, but not the only requirement. WP:NOTNEWS -- The Red Pen of Doom 17:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Then you need to read what you've written again. You're the only one who has argued that this should be kept because of case law, and you raised that argument up merely in order to knock it back down. That is a canonical straw man.

                  You haven't explained how any other policy actually applies, by the way. It's no good just quoting abbreviations without explaining how the policy (not the abbreviation) actually applies to the case at hand. Uncle G (talk) 19:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Their site has a collation of news reports, which may be an easy way to find reliable sources on this story:[22]. It's an interesting exercise: create a website potentially infringing on Wikipedia's trademark, create a page about it on Wikipedia, blog about its deletion and start a controversy about Wikipedia apparently censoring art, gaining coverage enough to make the story notable... Fences and windows (talk) 04:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue at hand is someone using Wikipedia as a self promotional device.-- The Red Pen of Doom 12:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Iridescent. The self-reference objections are noted and well-considered, but the range of coverage in various sources tips this over the notability line in my view. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 13:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, The issue is not the original article, but the effects that the article had and the additional discussion about the community. Additional press,http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/entertainment/44035017.html and is being published about in at least one scholarly journal and two book chapters in the coming months. [23] --Patlichty (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That article Patlichty links to above will apparently also appear in the Sunday print edition of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. It concentrates more on the whole story than the domain dispute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.89.138.212 (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I suggest that this article is actually a good place to write about the idea of the original page, as background - then that information serves a legitimate encyclopedic purpose. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think the second paragraph already does this sufficiently to establish that part of the context. The major part of the context is the use of the domain, not the article on Wikipedia. The domain name dispute could just as easily have occurred without the Wikipedia article ever existing. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undecided. As a domain name dispute it is so minor as to be laughable. It would be receiving no coverage at all if it wasn't for the people involved hyping it and seeking to present it as something it isn't. It seems that there is an attempt to use the domain name dispute as an excuse to reopen the argument about the rights and wrongs about the original deletion of the "Wikipedia Art" article (the one that was supposed to be an artwork in itself, rather than an encyclopaedia article and hence got deleted from this encyclopaedia for not being an encyclopaedia article). Domain name disputes are normally only notable if they get to court, and even then only if they are significant cases, but this seems to be picking up some limited RS coverage despite it being a complete non-story. The problem is that RS coverage is RS coverage. We can't pick and choose which RS coverage can be used to reference an article just on the basis that we suspect it to be poor or trivial journalism. I am yet to be convinced that the coverage in RS sources is "significant", as is required, but I can see that it is close.
    The other hurdle to overcome, which nobody has mentioned yet, is WP:NOTNEWS. I am not sure whether this article falls foul of that or not. Maybe it is too early to say.
    Maybe there is a case to keep this article. After all, there are many other Wikipedia articles about subjects which are only notable because somebody chose to hype them and the RS press chose to allow itself to be hyped. We can tut and roll our eyes but we can't sweep them all away. An encyclopaedia has to cover everything notable, including the shallower and more minor things to become noted in the world. This doesn't bother me. What does bother me is that the article may be an ongoing source of disruption. (Note: I am not suggesting that this itself is a reason to delete.) It will need to be monitored closely to ensure that it stays on-topic (i.e. keeps to the domain name dispute), only relies on genuine RS references, does not give give undue, biased or promotional coverage of what remains a very minor matter. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rather reluctant keep—on the one hand, I was not far behind Werdna in moving forward to close the debate on the original article—had he waited, I'd have closed it. The original article was, frankly, a circus kept up by people forgetting that we're not for things made up one day in light of the apparent intellectualism, and I still feel we're letting the artists troll us in their "intervention" piece. Sure, there was buzz generated, even from multiple reliable sources, but I still don't like it: they're using Wikipedia as a means of publicity, and that's something that we try not to allow. On the other hand, this particular article is probably notable, though we should not confuse notability of the events with notability of the project itself. While I do not oppose deletion, I don't think that's the correct path in keeping with our principles. {{Nihiltres|talk|log}} 16:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (edit conflict)[reply]
    • I agree. I would certainly like to apologise for the way I handled my part in that AfD. I do feel responsible for it turning into a circus and I feel very bad that I had a hand in something that may become an ongoing distraction from the real goal of Wikipedia, which is to build a free encyclopaedia for everybody to use, not to get bogged down in metadiscussion. --DanielRigal (talk) 16:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close, as it appears to be a manipulation of Wikipedia to keep the controversy alive. The nominator's contributions (account created 29 April) are only to create this afd and add [24] [25] notable Wikipedian tags to the creators of Wikipedia art. The article had also been created by an account (created 25 April) as the only edit. The whole thing is probably an intended manipulation of Wikipedia for whatever purpose, using sockpuppets or meatpuppets. Cenarium (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well spotted. I had not noticed that connection. I agree that we are being jerked around, again. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • clarification I am Scott Kildall, one of the two creators (along with Nathaniel Stern) of the original Wikipedia Art project. I simply want to clarify that neither Nathaniel nor I had anything to do with the creation of this Wikipedia Art controversy page or the above mentioned edits, nor do we even know who made this page or started the Afd. Since there was some question of our motives, I thought it would be helpful to state this publicly. --Luckyscott 2009-04-30 18:40:31
  • First, I find this conversation confusing. Is this about keeping an encyclopedia or following the trail of people who you think have different motives than you? (And I'll add that if this article was going to be a source of disruption, it would be NOW, with all the press, not later - and it seems to be doing just fine, no vandalism). The reason given above for deletion is notability, even though it 'has RS, but not "significant" RS'. It now has that, too - and probably more to come if the Sentinel article is any indication - and the reason for deletion suddenly changes to who posted it?

    Second, WHY WHY WHY does this page HAVE to be about the domain dispute, and WHY is DanielRigal pushing that over and over again? ALL the "significant" RS /News covers the piece of art / intervention just as much as the domain issue (in the Sentinel, more so). I can see the point that this page cannot and should not be "a work of art on Wikipedia." But the story of that piece as an art intervention and performance - which includes the domain dispute - has already become very obviously significant, and CAN be written about in an encyclopedic way. Why don't you just change the page to reflect the way the news actually talks about it, its actual significance, rather than what people here think (whether pro or con, artist or wikipedian), and then protect the page? The sensationalism referred to here, the case law blah blah blah is how the blogs which are not "significant" talk about. The holy grail of mainstream press has more to say, and it's being ignored in this discussion.Artintegrated (talk) 17:58, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very weak keep - This nomination is too early. Perhaps in a couple weeks we could actually determine whether NOT#NEWS applies, but sourcing alone is adequate for now. I would definitely oppose making the article about Wikipedia Art though. While the sources do cover it somewhat, they give just enough to provide background, as should our article; but the real story is the domain dispute. Mr.Z-man 21:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Content It is really about the content of the articles outside of this discussion Artintegrated (talk) 21:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Procedural close per Cenarium. There's enough manufactured coverage of the performance to maintain a five-paragraph article, for the time being. Ottre 12:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Procedural close. I will go along with Cenarium and Ottre. The case for deletion is not made but I would hate to see it afforded the dignity of a "keep" decision either. It makes sense to close this in a way that does not prejudice any future decisions. --DanielRigal (talk) 12:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE There are many more KEEPS than Deletes. Please make a note of this. Artintegrated (talk) 17:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The number of keeps is not important, only the quality of the arguments. Please see WP:NOTVOTE and the banner at the top of the page. We clearly have not reached a consensus to delete but the closing admin has a number of other options. They can choose the result as "keep", "no consensus" or to close the discussion on various procedural grounds. The article gets kept either way. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment."The number of keeps is not important, only the quality of the arguments." This is a difficult argument to criticize without it seeming personal. However, this illustrates the key issues of the debate about the controversy, and the project in general once the community engaged with it.
    1: That Wikipedians have an arcane set of rules that sets up a nearly infinite scaffold of ad hoc provisions that allows for the deletion of content that does not fit the sensibility of the community, regardless of the noteworthiness of the content. It is no wonder that there is nearly %50 pop culture content in Wikipedia.
    2: "Quality of the Argument" - This has no possible objective criteria, and allows for any "qualified" Wikipedian to set those standards for "Quality", like our 18-19 year old friend who invoked the Snowball Rule on WPA in the first place. At least Mr. Rigal is playing by some sense of fair play, although I do not agree with the position he is hinting at. Certainly, this is yet another argument for Andrew Keen's assertions about the general untrustworthiness of Wikipedia, Web 2.0 and amateur culture, although I am both part of the cultures of the "expert" and of "expertise". However, to say any more than this is to digress beyond the matter at hand far too much.
    In general, Wikipedia needs to keep this entry as a matter of integrity. --24.14.53.94 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2009 (UTC)--24.14.53.94 (talk) 12:58, 2 May 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Home and family blog[edit]

Home and family blog (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable web concept with no third party reliable sources. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. 16x9 (talk) 19:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Note: Article's name changed to "List of bloggers and blogs about home and family" by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

  2. Note: Article's name changed to "List of parenting bloggers" by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

  3. Note: Article's name changed back to original title, "Home and family blog," by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC).

Thanks for your candor (essentially grounding your rationale via WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT rather than premises of the Wikiproject on bloggers and blogging) but I'm only going to use existing WP entries in the list. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*::Delete. No, I think it's more WP:CRYSTAL. SimonTrew (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC) (changed mind, see below)[reply]

"Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation."---WP:CRYSTALYou've lost me. Never mind, just pointing to a guideline doesn't count as a vote anyway. Thanks though. ↜Just me, here, now … 23:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD is not a voting process, anyway. Anyway, I had imagined you might say something like that, but read further "1. Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." and "3. Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.". The article admittedly does not literally "present" that, but by saying "I hope to turn the current stubby definition into a quite comprehensive list", and "I'm only going to (my italics) use existing WP entries in the list", if that's not future history or extrapolation I don't know what is. I'm an inclusionist, but I think there should be a minimum of momentum before an article can stand on its own feet. Best wishes SimonTrew (talk) 05:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete appears from a Google search to be the foundation for a spam advertising article. At best is a neologism judging from the tiny number of Google hits. Drawn Some (talk) 21:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean for an almanac to list coconut milk per capita in Indonesia a Google search's gotta come up with a lot of hits for the phrase or else it's in vio of WP:NEOLOGISM? (I feel like John McEnro. " - C-A-N - Y-O-U - B-E - S-E-R-I-O-U-S - ! ".....lol) ↜Just me, here, now … 21:49, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, referee, I'll take the loss of a point. Ahem. Anyway, here's the actual guideline being ostensibly referred to, for those interested:

[...T]here will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title.---WP:NEOLOGISM

{Whispers} (...BTW, if you're following along here: This doesn't mean ya {raises voice} GOOGLE SEARCH! {speaks normally} the, somewhat long or awkward title.) ↜Just me, here, now … 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, "home and family" blog, what is that? NN. ~EdGl ★ 23:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean rename? Or do you mean that if you yourself have never heard of, say, a comprehensive listing of the notable Venezuelan bloggers that therefore such a list would be of no import to those afficianados of blogging culture who are actually interested in this branch of human knowldedge? ↜Just me, here, now … 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to merge with List of blogs. Article as it stands is a list of bloggers, and was renamed (not by me) to reflect this. ~EdGl ★ 00:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - even after the rename (to suit the creators agenda) the content is poorly/unsourced OR. 16x9 (talk) 00:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Wrt my agenda, 'tis this: a claim, for example, that Erma Bombeck ain't worthy of encylopedic mention cause of what she was writing about is plain highbrow nonsense. As for some mysterious, other "agenda"...let's see: I don't know any housewife bloggers nor am I interested commercially in exploiting the well-known phenomena of some of them making their rent money through their witty blogging (which I don't read because I'm not that "domestic"); nor do I know about or care about women entrepreneurs who are selling blogging kits or whatever exists; and I don't even know where Martha Stewart lives in Connecticut. (I stay on US 95 as I drive up and might get off in New Haven.) But I'm starting to mindlessly "share" about myself now. In any case, what do you mean by my agenda, actually?
  2. Wrt alleged "OR":

    In the midst of talking to other moms, these bloggers have discovered big business was listening. Companies like Graco and Johnson & Johnson are reaching out to mom bloggers, hoping to get a mention. Women value the opinion of other women, and if a blogger writes that she loves the little girls' orange butterfly sandals from the x-y-z shoe store, you can be certain a few other moms will head directly to x-y-z to buy them!---NBC NEWS

    In other words, the article had been up for but a few seconds before being nominated and you're worrying about sources? (Ya need a source for the sun being in the sky too? {wink} "OR" doesn't preclude editors and AfD reviewers just abiding by plain common sense btw....) ↜Just me, here, now … 00:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
well yes you would need a source *wink. Wikipedia is not about truth or common sense but what is verifiable no original research information. If it was never published the sun was in the sky then wikipedia couldn't say it. 16x9 (talk) 00:59, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To me the problem is potentially improper synthesis. We need reliable sources that state that the topic of these blogs is "home and family". If such a categorisation exists and the blogs are notable, then the article is fine. I think some of the objections above verge on IDONTLIKEIT. Fences and windows (talk) 04:42, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. Wouldn't a better list be List of parenting websites? This would be non-original research, and fine if it included notable websites and blogs. Fences and windows (talk) 04:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: From what I gather the article title was changed on request, so I think that should be discounted as far as AfD goes. I've looked at the five people listed on the article and personally I think at least four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes. (I've marked two with like-resume tag; one in the talk page so as not to distract in this AfD, one in the page itself as it already had other tags). Why not just make a subcategory and put those articles into it? That's one of the things they're for, surely. SimonTrew (talk) 05:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Simon said, ",four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes"....
True. Anyway...OK folks, I shouldn't have to lecture you oldtimers on proceduere, but here goes. Such considerations are to be hashed out at article talkpage space. AfD's only hash out whether proposed article's topic is too obscure, etc. In fact, per how AfD's are to be done, just jumping to one a few seconds after an article is bugun to be constructed is clearly not cool; {sighs} in fact (...to further fill up AfD space instead of work on the article; O well....) what follows are the consecutive steps supposed to be taken BEFORE resorting to an AfD, per the guidelines (and note that I've interspersed my own comment after consecutive step of the guideline):
2 Read the article to properly understand its topic. Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered.
This means that an AfD popped on an article that's being construced to be a list needs to take this fact into account.
3 If the article is not already tagged to note a problem, apply a tag, such as [notability], [hoax], [original research], [unencyclopedic] or [advert]; this ensures that everyone viewing the article is aware of the problem and may act to remedy it.
This means, in cases where an article conceivably has potential of being on a non-obscure topic, contributors are to expend energy trying to bring an article to such a state rather than rush prematurely to an AfD.
4 Consider making the page a useful redirect or proposing it be merged rather than deleted. Neither of these actions requires an AfD.
OK, this AfD's nominator did suggested such remedies in the AfD -- not exactly the right place to start, since it again has the cart before the horse, but I have no objection to these approaches at least being considered so will call this item sort of a wash.
5 Click "what links here" in the article's sidebar, to see how the page is used and referenced within Wikipedia.
See comment above.
6 Check interwiki links to pages "in other languages" which may provide additional material for translation.
7 Read the article's talk page, which may provide reasons why the article should or should not be deleted; if there was a previous nomination, check that your objections haven't already been dealt with.
Not applicable.
8 Familiarize yourself with the guidelines and policies on notability, reliable sources and what Wikipedia is not. Related guidelines include WP:BIO, WP:COI, WP:CORP, WP:MUSIC, WP:WEB, and, for list articles, WP:CLN.
...And hash issue out on talkpage first?
9 When nominating an article for deletion due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources aren't likely to exist.
Did not do.
10 Before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD. If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD.
Correct. Conclusion?...
  • Speedy keep since nomination was and remains out of order, per applicable accepted guidelines and procedures. ↜Just me, here, now … 11:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said "personally I think at least four of them are not notable, but that's beside the point as far as this AfD goes." That is not quite the same thing — in fact is the opposite thing — of saying that's a reason for deletion. SimonTrew (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you keep argument is because you assume bad faith with the nomination and call out policy guidelines when there are equally/more important guidelines on article creation. The original article you created was at best a protologisms definition what was already covered in the main Blog article. Then when that was no going well a change to this list article which contents could be or are covered in List of blogs. There are still no references for the article. 16x9 (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The name "Home and family blog" is, as far as we can tell, an invention of the article creator. In the absence of reliable sources for this categorisation of blog and in the absence of reliable sources stating that the blogs and bloggers listed are notable for the topic of "home and family", this needs deleting. Fences and windows (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of order. Could someone explain the wiki-mechanism Wrt the general inevitability in AfDs that by the time mainspace contributors assemble citations and whatnot (eg as here, for var. blogs' being in the domestic genre) its AfD will have amassed a slew of ![not-really-]votes? ↜Just me, here, now … 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Article's name changed to "List of bloggers and blogs about home and family" by ↜Just me, here, now … 00:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

• Note: Article's name changed to "List of parenting bloggers" by ↜Just me, here, now … 23:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC).

I was vaguely aware there was an "under construction" tag that you can put on articles, well, under construction. The reason I didn't look it up, to be honest, was 'cause I imagined such a topic as the one I was writing on was a slam dunk to be notable. (What, with the percentage of the population that are moms and would be interested in reading something written by other moms.... And, what, with the fact that the Intenet's caused this phenomenon to happen.... And, what, with the tools of google search and the reading of news reports and whatnot to document the notability of such a fact.... )

I'm not complaining mind you. I have zero vested interest in writing about this subject. I don't read such blogs nor know anyone who writes them. (My own style of exposition is somewhat close to what I imagine their chattiness is, though.) And I'm not that "domestic," myself, either.

Anyway, I did customize a tag regarding "systemic bias" (sort of) that I posted on the article. Here's the rub (for real!): Wikipedians are predominantly men. And -- every pornstar in the adult film biz has a Wikipedia page. Coincidence? I don't mind notable pop culture topics being covered but do mind myopia about things in popular culture that should receive encyclopedic coverage in WP but haven't yet. It's like if you interrupted somebody reading The Economist and asked them which magazine is more popular, The Economist or Good Housekeeping, and the person didn't know. You'd think, "Hmm. You'd think an Economist reader would be more informed!"

So, with that long introduction, let me try a statistic to make the case for the notability for blogs about domesticity. Let's check the Alexa rankings of two blogs (at which, note, the ranking of #1 is at the top.) I checked Dooce (which blog I've never really read in my life, but is in my mommy blogger list). It's ranked at # 29,919 of all blogs. Then I checked the ranking for Andrew Sullivan (which I myself click over to several times a week!) It's ranked much much farther down the popularity list than Dooce at # 5,339,802. Yet, despite his fewer readers, I've got the feeling Wikipedia folks have heard of Sullivan and not Dooce (which until recently would have also been the case with me, after all).

What genre is Sullivan? We need a source for that, but before I get one I'll just clue you in. His is a polical blog. His site's tagline? "Of no party or clique."

But what is Dooce's tagline? "Talking a lot about poop, boobs, her dog, and her daughter." And as for that "future" time when some witty woman might be able to sit at home composing a witty, high-traffic blog on the Internet that's about sitting at home, blah blah...well, that's today in the here and now (with no WP:crystalballing required). And if you give me a chance I'll get references (Google hits for "mom" plus "blog"? news cites?) that the genre is notable. (The secondary motto on Sullivan's site? This quote from George Orwell: "To see what is in front of one's nose needs a constant struggle.")

footnote - Note that Andrew Sullivan is on the list that's posted on Wikipedia at Political blog#Notable American political blogs and bloggers...yet then note Sullivan's actual share of the blog reading audience, per the above Alexa ranking of his extremely popular political blog, in comparison with Ms. Dooce's, of another blogging genre. ↜Just me, here, now … 13:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I think Justmeherenow makes a couple of valid points here. First the article was not given any time to grow, and it is not fair for editors (myself included) to excuse that on the grounds that there were no stubs, categories, links, whatever: that's just WP:BURO. It was quite plain from the start that the article was in infancy and it was far to early to go to AfD.
I think notability is an issue but given a short time can be achieved, and we should help justmenow in navigating around Wikipedia's arcane rules not just wrap a "police do not enter" tape around the article. I've refrained from editing it even for minor typos etc until this AfD expires. I emphasise a short time, perhaps two weeks.
Old hands please remember: Wikipedia is not an easy place to navigate if you don't know exactly what to look for. Wikilinks are great, but take (e.g. yesterday) that my stub for a car company comes under {{motorvehicle-company-stub}} but the car it makes under {{vehicle-stub}} (not motorvehicle-stub or vehicle-model-stub or whatever, which would seem equally plausible) and this is hard to find: you can't search for it. Similarly, I have no idea what !vote is supposed to mean, is it a template, a policy, some slang, what? Wikipedia search doesn't help at all.
I think justmenow's comments above have a smack of sexism to them unwarranted in an AfD (or indeed elsewhere on WP), but that is about the AfD itself and not about the article, and so irrelevant as far as the article itself is concerned.
I have replied more fully to justmenow's at the user's talk page, hopefully giving some constructive criticism and suggestions.
Keep. SimonTrew (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - Okay lets really look at what has happened. I tagged the article for afd when it was called Home and family blog. under the premise that this is a non notable topic with no third party reliable sources and that wikipedia is not a dictionary. There were already categories and links to the page (I find it from a link at Blog. If there were a CSD for concepts it would have been easily speedy deleted for no claim of notability. After being brought here the article name has been changed two times trying to find a way to stay. Even in its current form it is un-sourced original research. Any of the content in this list, if it is not already, could be merged to List of blogs. Now, the author in this case as over 12,000 edits on en.wiki which would be plenty to understand the "rules". 16x9 (talk) 17:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom, 16x9, can't utter my name? Well, let's do remain grounded in WP's guidelines, then. Chapter and verse!: As they're extremely intelligently written, with many the caveat to guard against their being wielded counter to their true meaning, in detriment to Wikipedia's ultimate goals. (Who does this kind of wielding?, someone asks. Pedants. And, What is pedantry? Editorial polemics.)
    Which assertion I'd be required to souce from theory of knowledge: no problem! But, sir or ma'am, why such a stark line as all that, drawn in the sand? against Those Others, the Usurpers (Yours Truly) and in defense of We Wikipedians, The Keepers of The True Flame (our friendly Nom here)? Why not acknowlege each others' good faith (see the guidelines). And that each pole of our dialectic has meaning and purpose. A useful dynamic, in pursuit of our mutual goal. That is, let's talk ideas, not personalities. ↜Just me, here, now … 21:45, 1 May 2009 (UTC) ↜Just me, here, now … 21:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Peacock): (Btw out of the random stubs, some of which are now articles, I've "created" (i, ii, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, ix, x, xi, xii, xiii, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, xviii, and xix), I've never used an "under construction" tag once. ((I will from now on, though!))) ↜Just me, here, now … 23:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nom's argument that the article's content could be merged somewhere is simply not an argument for deletion' but rather that this content is notable, no? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Note: I changed the article back to its original title, "Home and family blog," so -- no more complaints! ↜Just me, here, now … 23:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Note: Per the stipulations laid down at WP:CANVASSING, I've "appropriately canvassed" all participants of the discussion at "WP:Articles for deletion/List of blogs" (including the user who was its closing administrator), thereby abiding by its strictures that such notifications be limited to a small number of neutrally selected editors. (I pinged 19; 20 altogether, since I also pinged User:Wikidemon, a WPdian who I know from experience calls em like s/he sees em, independently and without partiality.) ↜Just me, here, now … 07:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You still need to demonstrate the notable existence of this category of blog, i.e. "Home and family", and that the blogs you want to list belong to this category. Please provide some sources. Also, this AfD is thoroughly confused, especially by multiple changes in title. Fences and windows (talk) 00:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The precise title is secondary. Home and family blog, parenting blog, mom blog, dad blog, etc are possibilities, and intelligently subsuming relevant referenced information under a topic / title is not considered OR. Wikipedia would be unwritable without such exercises of editorial judgment. Reliable sources are definitely not necessary to support that a notable obvious mom blog is a h & f blog, if that is the title we decide on. Searches like this 311 gnews hits for parenting blog and refs in the article indicate this is a notable category of blogs, with notable members. Their high popularity is noteworthy, and we should consciously counter unintentional systematic bias against such topics.John Z (talk) 09:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, rename and define inclusion criteria. What are the inclusion criteria? We can't just have editors deciding by themselves that a blog or website is about "Home and family", that's a recipe for POV-driven edit warring. For instances, Justmeherenow includes Mom's Cancer, but that's about a webcomic, not a blog, and it is about his mother dying of cancer, not "Home and family" as such. I use this as an illustration that even the article creator doesn't have a clear idea of what should be included. Do blogs about home improvements count as "Home and family"? Who knows.
The guide WP:NEO says this: "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title."
I'll give you a better title: Websites about family life and homemaking. That includes parenting, writing about your parents, moaning about your siblings, spouse or partner, and being a housewife or househusband, in a neat catch-all. Fences and windows (talk) 18:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but either the primary author is deliberately trying to avoid being deleted by changing the title, or, assuming good faith, has been sent from pillar to post by other editors continually requesting a change of title. So I agree (an I think primary author would agree) title is not perfect, but that has nothing to do with whether the article should be deleted: that's a move request. SimonTrew (talk) 21:59, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think, per WP:NEOLOGISM#Articles wrongly titled as neologisms," that this title just suggested by User:Fences and windows might be a better/more precise than "home and family." How does any/everybody else feel? ↜Just me, here, now … 21:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Blog#Types. Actually it's not clear to me if the article name should be kept around as a redirect, as there seems to be no evidence that this is a notable term, or that someone would try searching for that article. But the content seems fine, just better placed as part of another article. Mdwh (talk) 12:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category for all notable home and family blogs could be made. It could get a brief mention at blog I guess. Computerjoe's talk 12:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there is sufficient evidence to show this as a type of blog. The article will obviously need careful watching. There should also be a category. DGG (talk) 02:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep content-wise but continue to discuss a possible merge or move. With regards to neologisms, the sources do not quantify the term "home and family blog". However, I definitely encourage, as an alternative, discussing a move to another term that is backed by verifiable sources; looking at them, I see "Moms blog" and "Mommy blog". Perhaps consensus can steer towards one of those two terms, which may provide some justification for its own article if not a subsection under Blog#Types (I would be more inclined towards the former in this specific case). MuZemike 16:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mom blog would be OK. (However note that the way the Open Directory Project categorizes its hits wrt mommy blogs as, somewhat similarly, Home:Family:Mothers:Parenting:Weblogs.) ↜Just me, here, now … 17:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - seems at least somewhat notable as a type of blog, with several significant examples. A merge is a possibility, as is a rename (Parenting blog, perhaps?), but I don't see the grounds for deletion here - there are plenty of references to reliable sources provided. Robofish (talk) 21:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support for article contents, including the use and meaning of neologisms, must come from reliable sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source that includes material on the basis of verifiability, not truth. To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term. (Note that wikis such as Wiktionary are not considered to be a reliable source for this purpose.)

Neologisms that are in wide use—but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources—are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available, it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles.

Unfortunately, the article only cites sources that use the term, and therefore fails to meet Wikipedia's neologism standard presented above. "Home and family blog" does not qualify for an article at this time. The Transhumanist 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article doesn't even really make sense and talks about "mom blogs", not "home and family blogs". Like I said, it's a neologism at best and more likely the foundation for an attempt to spam www.homeandfamilyblog.com. Drawn Some (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your belief, Drawn Some, that an established WPdian such as myself would embarked on any such devious plan I frankly find sort of------- {tries to think of an inoffensive way to say weird} ↜Just me, here, now … 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Conspiracy-theories loving"! {wonders to self, How's that?) ↜Just me, here, now … 23:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an article about the phrase "home and family blogs", but the topic, about which several alternatives exist. So as stated above, the precise title is secondary for AfD purposes, and the neologism style guideline is not too relevant. Indeed, it states : Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms that "In a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a made-up or non-notable neologism in such a case. Instead, use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." "Home and family blog" here is more naturally interpreted as "a descriptive phrase in plain English" rather than a neologism.John Z (talk) 22:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but "Websites about family life and homemaking", which I suggested, isn't a neologism. Wikipedia editors are far too fond of the "neologism" argument for deletion. We should focus on whether reliable sources cover the area, not if the specific phrase in the article title is used. That said, the phrase "Parenting blog" is a common one, used in many hits on Google News, e.g. [26][27][28][29][30]. Fences and windows (talk) 22:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) 'Avoid neologisms' directs us to, well, avoid neologisms, but it doesn't mean we should delete an article just because it has a neologistic title. I would argue that this isn't an article about a neologism; that would be something like Home and family blog (phrase), and be subject to those guidelines. This is an article about a notable phenomenon; the current name may not be appropriate (I agree it isn't) but that doesn't mean the article should be deleted, rather it should be renamed to a better title. Robofish (talk) 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Now I've got my edit through, I see that the two previous edits already basically said the same thing... well, at least the point is now clear! :) Robofish (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge: The article appears to be a synthesis to form a category and potentially a neologism (or at least something resembling a neologism), and should be deleted. In the alternative, it should be merged into List of blogs. Jo7hs2 (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How can "home and family blog" be a neologism? The only vaguely new word there is "blog", the rest I think are quite old. If I write an article on "German and Swedish car blogs", notable or not, it would not be a neoligism. The point here it seems to me comes down not to neology but to notability: either it should be simply a category, or it should be an article if it adds information above what a category would, or it should be deleted. Lack of sources to my mind does not make it deletable. It would be lovely to have them, but I am sure we can all point at several articles that have no sources yet are GA. SimonTrew (talk) 22:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You are kidding, right? What is verifiable is third party sources is what is written on wikipedia. Nothing has been shown that phrase "home and family blog" has existed or is notable thus neologism. The very few reliable sources found could go toward a sentence or two mention at Blog#Types. There is no need to split this topic into its own article. 16x9 (talk) 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But no one is claiming that the phrase "Home and family blog" is a term, rather, this is an article about a particular topic, and this is just the name we give for that (which is now "List of parenting blogs", btw). Remember that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, so articles here are about concepts, not just words or phrases. The neologism issue only applies if we are trying to claim a phrase exists, or are making on up. In particular, see Wikipedia:Avoid_neologisms#Articles_wrongly_titled_as_neologisms - the only issue here is with naming, i.e., we should avoid trying to make up a neologism. However, this is absolutely no justification for deleting the article content, and the guideline supports this. Your reasoning is like saying that the phrase "List of auto-antonyms in English" is a neologism, or "Societal attitudes toward homosexuality‎". But clearly these aren't trying to coin phrases, rather, they are descriptions for the article.
If there is concern that the article title sounds like a neologism, then I would propose a rename to List of blogs about parenting or Blogs about home and family - this is not however an argument for deleting the article. Mdwh (talk) 01:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My concern that this may be pushing the edge of a neologism as a list/article topic is that the list makes an attempt to define what a parenting/home & family blog is in the very first sentence, even if that wasn't the author's explicit intention. The title of the article is not the only offender, so a mere title change is insufficient. Jo7hs2 (talk) 10:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response to SimonTrew: A neologism can be a new word, usage of a word, expression, or phrase, not just simply a new word. That said, the fact that this could be a neologism is not as important as the appearance that the author(s) were creating a new subject (I said category, which was inaccurate, I meant a category/type of blog(s)) via synthesis, which is generally at odds with WP standards. This isn't a research publication, it is an encyclopedia, and this article requires a leap of OR to even exist, since the category of blogs appears to have been noted nowhere else. Jo7hs2 (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


  • comment:It was asked above what the inclusion criteria should be for material like this. the answer, is they can be whatever we want them to be. We make the rules, and we can make whatever exceptions are indicated. It's not as if we were working on someone else's project. DGG (talk) 00:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'comment'. Well put DGG. Nuff said.
To jo7hs2: I had assumed you meant a Category in the Wikipeda sense, but simply trying to arrange existing content, whichever mechanism is used, to me is not OR even if I might think it a bad arrangement. I admit here the problem partly is the content did not exist before. I must admit I've been quite fearful of regategorising stuff myself expecting kinda talk about "Get out of my category!" but have not had any as yet; if anything editors have been very helpful to me suggesting (or just moving to) more specific subcategories or stubs.
To Mdwh: I realise a neologism can be more than one word (though Gk. logos means "word", not "some vague noun-cloud I'm thinking of"). I see we have good old WP:DICDEF surfacing again; and a complaint that the first sentence of the lead defines the term. So what? It's quite common for the first line of the lead to define the term, it would be a bit perverse if we had to tiptoe around what the subect actually was before discussing it encyclopaedically. For most articles that doesn't mean we need etymology or pronunciation etc unless relevant in the article (there's Wiktionary for that) but a one-line definition of what something is actually about seems eminently sensible, in fact bleeding obvious. SimonTrew (talk) 11:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, I asked about inclusion criteria. I know that no external body decides it for us, but if articles lack clear topics they bloat with irrelevancies and trivia. If the only person to whom the purpose of an article is clear is the article creator, we're setting ourselves up for trouble down the line. Agreeing what an article should actually be about seems pretty important. Fences and windows (talk) 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
put that way, my response is that for subjects such as this, we need t o decide ad hoc and feel our way until we have enough experience to develop a consensus. UIn general, for hew internet related things we should be more inclusive, because of 3 considerations: the unconventional general nature of the sources, the greast suitability of us in particualr to lead the way here, and that we are acknowledged as a leader here, rather than having other encyclopedias to imitate., This is our central realm. DGG (talk) 08:44, 8 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diving at the 2012 Summer Olympics[edit]

Diving at the 2012 Summer Olympics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unreferenced page. Created 3 years too early. Tresiden (talk) 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm a little confused as Tresiden removed the {{prod}} in favour of {{afd}}. This is usually a sign that they contest the prod, however here they seem to endorse it's deletion. Regardless I think it should be deleted, at this very early stage is an unnecessary fork from the 2012 Summer Olympics page. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 20:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've only just started getting involved in this and was a bit confused myself. I've read up about the prod and stuff and that now anyways. :) Tresiden (talk) 08:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge the limited information to Diving at the 2008 Summer Olympics or to 2012 Summer Olympics. There is no need to reserve a place in line for an eventual article. Whenever there is something to say-- and I imagine that by 2011, we'll know the schedule of events for springboard and platform, men's and women's events, etc. The only thing we can say for certain at the moment is that (a) this will happen in the summer of 2012 between July 27 and August 12; (b) it will be at the Aquatics Centre (London) and (c) the pool will be filled with water. Mandsford (talk) 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - and we can't even be sure it's taking place at Aquatics Centre (London) as the facility has not finished contruction yet. -- Whpq (talk) 15:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While it's likely to eventually happen, there's not yet sufficient verifiable information to sustain an article. Some seemingly reliable information is still speculative (the Aquatics Centre) and subject to change (the times) - Mgm|(talk) 09:41, 1 May 2009 (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 Clear consensus to delete. The rewrite has not addressed the concerns that this bio picks out a small part of the subject's life. Kevin (talk) 23:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Fitzgerald[edit]

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

Essentially, this is a woman that was loosely alluded to in a handful of biographical works, and was another person's secretary, who was at one point accused by a handful of people of possibly maybe perhaps having an affair with someone, but this was never shown to be true, and is a political rumor/ploy from 1988 disguised as a Wikipedia BLP article.

Delete, for BLP concerns, and for simple lack of genuine notability on her own. At most this deserves a one or two sentence sourced footnote on the George H. W. Bush article, and not even a redirect in our MediaWiki system. rootology (C)(T) 15:46, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Damn, you beat me here. Yes, this should go, it is a record of a old rumour posing as biography. (See WP:COATRACK)--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:56, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I started looking at this last week. From my checking of the content and the sources, the article is not about her. It is about what other people think about her. Many of the people have not spoken on the record about her except to say that there were rumors about her. After looking into the issue, I don't think a move to rename is appropriate, either. FloNight♥♥♥ 16:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete. Lack of sources that discuss Fitzgerald life. The sources used are about Bush and discuss his relationship to her. This information should be presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be explained. Cobbling together bits of information found in pieces that primarily discuss Bush gives a distorted impression of her. When bits of information are plucked from sources that frame the person in a narrow way, then we are not writing a biography, instead the article is a piece about a sliver of the persons life. In this instance, I see no way that this can be fixed given the available sources. I continue to suggest deletion as the best way to address the undue weight issues. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 16:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  16:33, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; this poses BLP issues with undue weight and the article appears to be a WP:COATRACK as noted above. I can see maybe mentioning this somewhere on the George H.W. Bush page and redirecting there, but even that is questionable; I consider myself fairly politically knowledgeable and had never once heard of this individual before now. Someone should also delete the fair-use image which calls her a "recluse" in its description. *** Crotalus *** 16:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: this line is particularly maddening: Hillary Clinton mentioned Fitzgerald in an interview with Vanity Fair, but her last name was not used. (So she mentioned "a Jennifer"? Then why would we say she mentioned Fitzgerald?) –xeno talk 16:45, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It still sortof lacks a solid assertion of notability ("worked for George H. W. Bush in several different capacities" is a little weak), but I suppose keep based on the elimination of the BLP issue and improvements by ARS and per DGG. –xeno talk 03:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless expanded with something to demonstrate notability (no, not that). Someone at this level could have achievements in her own right to warrant coverage, but at the moment there's no indication of it. – iridescent 16:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Still delete. Although it's been expanded, most of the "notability" comes from claims by Kitty Kelley, who's an inherently unreliable source, especially when it comes to BLPs. The other references are one-line mentions in articles on other subjects (e.g.) – the only significant one (with the possible exception of the books, but neither look likely to say anything of substance about her) is "Jennifer A. Fitzgerald, technically Bush's assistant for scheduling but in reality a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" in Time. Yes, we have comparable articles such as Anji Hunter, but those are created from sources about the subject; this one appears to be drawn entirely from tangential mentions of Fitzgerald in articles and books on other subjects. Given the gaping gaps – this article is just a list of her job titles, with no mention of her personal life, any event in the first 42 years of her life, her political positions, family, even a date of birth – the article as it stands still isn't viable. – iridescent 19:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I came upon this article last week when I was categorizing BLPs for WP:UBLP, and I wasn't sure what to do with it. Considering the main author, I posted to the talk and to WP:BLP/N. As I said there, I don't believe this is appropriate for inclusion, as it's only allegations and rumor. A BLP nightmare, really. لennavecia 16:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sustained delete following the "improvements" by the ARS. Still fails multiple criteria, most importantly BLP. These are nothing but allegations. It's inappropriate. لennavecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- should have been tagged for speedy on grounds of WP:BLP, WP:RS, WP:N etc etc. The article is merely speculation masquerading as fact and has no place in an encyclopaedia! HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a rumour masquerading as a biography. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we at least merge some of the content into 1988 U.S. presidential election (Oh, I see it's already there). I wrote most of this years ago, before we had BLP. I can understand why we ought not to have a stand-alone article, but in the context of that campaign it is notable. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not opposed to that if there is anything actually reliably sourced that is of use to that article. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stub this down now (yes, locking the barn after the horse has long been picked up by Google, but still...) and delete at the conclusion of this AfD. Or sooner. ++Lar: t/c 18:25, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above and also WP:ATP Martin451 (talk) 21:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If "what other people think of her" is found in RSs, she's notable. What's here shows a notable political figure. Earlier problems seem to have been solved. DGG (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • How do you suggest that Wikipedia editors address the significant undue weight issue with this article since the sources used view her through the narrow spectrum of explaining Bush's relationship with her? Given that there is a scarcity of information that discuss "her" life, why is the information not best presented in an article about Bush where proper context can be given? I don't see this article as a biography of her life as written now but rather scraps of material cobbled together that touch on a tiny aspect of the person. It makes no sense to keep articles such as this one when they have known undue weight issues, have the potential to be chronic BLP problems, and are unlikely to ever be a thorough well written entry. It not sensible for Wikipedia to continue down the path of presenting information like this article as a stand alone biography when we know that it will keep Wikipedia from being know as an encyclopedia with high quality articles. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This article has been rewritten from scratch by the Article Rescue Squadron. Though incomplete and likely to improve in the coming week, I believe the current version goes a long way to address early concerns. Early commenters are encouraged to review the latest version of the article and the closing admin is asked to interpret early !votes in the context of the state of the article at the time of commenting. Thanks, Skomorokh 02:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note - it is still using the same sources that refer to the relationship not the person. So, the concerns are not met for me. This person is not notable, all that is (perhaps) notable is a rumoured and denied affair. That can be recorded on an article on Bush, or the election. We don't have biographies of people notable for alleged (and denied) rumours, and built from sources of the same.--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Pathetic choice of tagging. The article is not uncited. The issue with the article is the content. It's not a biography, and she's not notable. There's been no meaningful "improvement" to the article. لennavecia 20:22, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just read it now. Still fails BIO, N, with some BLP concerns about the affair rumors thrown in. Why doesn't the ARS partrol the thousands of uncited articles? THere's a category for that even.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Rewritten version is substantially improved and demonstrates her notability. Indeed, the draft I am looking at now makes apparently no mention of the affair accusation (which is almost certainly not good. UNDUE issues are important but if we are going to have this article it should probably get a sentence). In any event, Fitzgerald was as the executive assistant of the Vice-President a high ranking individual akin to say Betty Currie. The article as written does a good job of showing her successful career which has led to her discussion in many sources. Meets WP:BIO. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:42, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • the comparison with Currie is inapt. There are sources profiling Currie - which are interested in her because of her notable position and there are interviews. Nothing like this exists with Fitzgerald. All the sources are there because of the rumour - if it hadn't been for the rumour there would be no sources at all. JF is not notable for here career, because the sources do not note her for her it. Can you provide any source that says otherwise?--Scott Mac (Doc) 07:38, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not accurate. Multiple of the sources given (such as Parmet's biography of Bush) discuss her independent of the claimed affair. The Time Magazine piece is focusing on her role in running Bush's staff. Moreover, even if her notability came primarily from the accusation of the affair then it would be arguably akin to that of Monica Lewinsky who we do have a separate article on. (Incidentally Better Currie actually came to public attention primarily because of her role in the Lewinsky affair). JoshuaZ (talk) 15:29, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong keep. This is a woman who has multiple references over several decades, for what was an significant and long-lasting series of political positions and roles, and referenced as such in multiple reputable sources dealing with the first Bush era and his career. In and of herself, this is enough for notability for me; for example anyone researching Bush's career (as a president or earlier) will come across her name very quickly. Multiple mentions in reliable sources exist back to at least 1982 (well before any reporting of an alleged affair), and reputable media such as the Times and Time describe her in quotes such as "a dominant figure who has much to say about where Bush goes, what he does and whom he sees" and "You cannot overestimate her influence on Bush". [Cites added to article]. The article was poor in tone, and I've edited it somewhat to fix that. It's missing some information that we should have (family, background, current retirement, etc), but it seems clearly to me to be a notable person.

    Regarding its quality, and any mention of the purported liaison, these are fixable cleanup issues. We don't delete an article on an otherwise notable person for that. In fact since the liaison is treated by good sources such as The Times as being effectively confirmed, which is unusual for a major newspaper of that quality, there is a good case we should not whitewash. It need only be as brief as: "in 1992, and following the Lewinsky scandal, allegations of a prior affair between Bush and Fitzgerald appeared in some major newspapers." End of subject. (Source: "Bush’s relationship with Fitzgerald finally became public during his re-election campaign in 1992" The Times). That is fair, and neutral. If we can find a significant statement by her about the claims, consider noting that too (NPOV) though thats pretty much implied anyway. But either way, the bio itself seems a good keep, and mention of that issue isn't in it at this point. FT2 (Talk | email) 15:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • FT2, are you seriously suggesting that Kitty Kelley (who you link to twice above) is "fair, and neutral"? – iridescent 19:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this form, or similar; she is notable due to her career alone. However, rumors about her &, er, her boss (who is a very notable person) have existed for some time so, as FT2 pointed out, we will need to figure out how to handle them. -- llywrch (talk) 20:01, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep after cleanup by Skomorokh. I see no remaining BLP concerns and the qutotes in Time and the Times are enough to ensure that a well-referenced, albeit stubby, bio belongs here. Any further additions should be made with caution and due respect for NPOV and RS. ThemFromSpace 05:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect salient information to George H.W. Bush. I wonder how a person who worked with the U.S. Ambassador to the United Kingdom, and later as a presidential chief of staff, executive assistant and chief lobbyist -- all for the same president -- be completely irrelevant, especially with such sterling references/links? Rumour-mongering can be easily dealt with. [email protected] (talk) 14:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Icestorm815 • Talk 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not notable career diplomat and aide to former president GHWB. At most a mention of her in the background sections on the president as an important advisor prior. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No matter which version I look at, I see a non-notable diplomat. Law type! snype? 19:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
  1. She is notable only in terms of her dealings with George Bush, not on her own.
  2. The edit history of this article still contains WP:BLP vios. This article came about due to an alleged (and denied) affair with Bush, and most of the edits have been about this. If there was just a few spurious edis then fine, but not virtually the whole edit history.
  3. The major reference used five times in the (current) article concentrates on alleged wrong doings, emphasising this reference is almost like writing the article about the alleged affair, which is why it was listed for AfD in the first place. Martin451 (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see any reason for an article on this person whatsoever!---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 20:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm afraid my original position still stands. This woman may or may not have had an affair with GHWB. If there was any solid proof, she'd be notable, but as it was she had an unremarkable career- we can't have every White House aide and his dog with an article. I disagree with a lot of WP:N, but we have to draw the line somewhere. HJMitchell You rang? 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My opinion hasn't changed, and I can't understand why this AfD has been re-opened. --Malleus Fatuorum 23:02, 29 April 2009 (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. As it stands this article is inherently in violation of WP:NOR; there is clearly no conventional understanding of what constitutes a 'national icon' and the comments suggesting this can be ironed out through discussion on the talk page demonstrate a rejection of encyclopedic standards in favour of an idealised concept of consensus as fact. I note the phrase national icon is a possible search term so I'm recreating this as a redirect to national symbol. Flowerparty☀ 07:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

National icon[edit]

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

not official, or even coordinated, usage. Essentially it seems to be "things that represent country X to me". Ironholds (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment' The problem here seems to be WP:NOR but I have not yet formed a complete opinion. There can be more than one "national icon" and there is no "official" designation for them. Drawn Some (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not encyclopedic but just a list - who decides what is a national icon? For countries which have verifiable national icons, they can have a category assigned to them. 173.7.181.118 (talk) 18:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— 173.7.181.118 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

What image do you first think of when you think of the US (Statute of liberty), France (Eifel tower). It isn't hard. There definetly is certain national icons for each country. Since you only have two edits on wikipedia. I added the "SPA" template, as per wikipedia custom in AfDs. The nominator should keep this in mind when he looks over this AfD. Ikip (talk) 03:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • (e/c x2) Weak delete. Article is referenced but those references do not indicate how this subject matter is notable, or why landmark A represents X country as opposed to any other landmark. For example, why Sydney Harbour Bridge instead of Sydney Opera House? KuyaBriBriTalk 18:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • why can't we discuss this in the discussion section of the article Canadian (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because the article has been nominated for deletion, it must be discussed here. Drawn Some (talk) 19:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Canadian, there are two policies: WP:PRESERVE and WP:BEFORE. If these editors would follow these policies, there would be much less drama and confrantation and more cooperation, unfortuntatly, these polocies are almost ignored. Almost always, the first edit to an article a nominator for deletion does, is to put the article up for deletion. You can discuss your dismay of ignoring these policies at the talk pages, WP:ARS. WT:AFD will be less sympathetic, as many of these editors who ignore these policies congregate there. Ikip (talk) 03:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ikip, WP:BEFORE isn't a policy. It isn't even a guideline. It's a subsection of the instructions on AfD nominations and conduct. Please be careful when citing "policies" particularly if you are accusing editors of ignoring them. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is cited constantly where it states that these monuments are national icons. if the wikipedia editor community has disagreements over what is the most recognized icon, then we can discuss it, instead of deleting the entire article. if there is something that one does not find to be correct, then feel free to change/ or delete it. no one can deny that the statue of liberty is not the most recognized icon of the united states or the burj al arab does not represent the uae. Canadian (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, that's part of the problem. Wikipedia is not to be used as a source like that. Everything here must be verifiable from independent reliable sources. The example of Sydney discussed above is a good one, I have never been there and I recognize the Opera House but not the bridge which is given as the national icon. And yes, you can deny that the Statue of Liberty is the most recognized icon of the United States. The U.S. Capitol is a strong contender. State birds are designated by government, these icons are not officially designated. Are any of these officially designated? Drawn Some (talk) 19:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I guess these national icons are represented by the media. You really do not need government approval to determine the official status of Burj Al Arab or the Merlion. I am pretty sure the Taj Mahal has some form of official designation. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am sorry, but we are arguing the absurd here, the Statue of liberty is not the icon of the US? The Taj Mahal is not the icon of India? The Eifel Tower of France? Ikip (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as totally unverifiable (sourced to YouTube, blogs & Wikipedia mirrors) and unmaintainable. - Biruitorul Talk 21:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you mean unmaintainable? This changes with the construction of new structures. Do you really think that there is going to be another Statue of Liberty or another Burj Al Arab or Singapore is going to make another Merlion? Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unmaintainable in the onslaught of warring POVs unsubstantiated (indeed unable to be substantiated) by reliable sources. - Biruitorul Talk 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • You will find lots of POVs in controversial articles. Just check out an articles on gay marriage and abortion. If you have a POV different from ones expressed in the article, then feel free to edit it to your liking. Canadian (talk) 01:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is not something salvageable through editing, as the lack of reliable sources on what makes individual monuments "national icons" attests. - Biruitorul Talk 01:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Per WP:DEADLINE there is no deadline to clean up this article. AfD is not the place to clean up an article. All of your arguments are clean up argumets, which are irrelevant here. If editors would spend more time in colaberation with the editors who created these articles, instead of simply being the "party of no", shoting down all good faith attempts to fix the article, we could together make this article very well sourced. Ikip (talk) 03:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • So who decides what's a national icon? This book says the US Capitol, not the Statue of Liberty, is the national icon of the United States. - Biruitorul Talk 04:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again I ask: who decides? I've found a source claiming the Capitol as the US national icon. [31] says Banff is Canada's. [32] says the Sydney Opera House is Australia's. [33] says St. Paul's is the United Kingdom's. So again: whose POV are we going to enshrine here, and why? - Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Looks good to me. I think what Canadian wants to say is that these are used most often to identify with a national. The Burj Al Arab and the Taj Mahal is a good contender. These things are pretty well cited and many times the citations refer to them as being national icons. By the way the television and magazines constantly refer to something as a national icon, this article is wholly relevant and fully has my consensus and will be pretty useful for Wikitravel. Just look at the city logo of Istanbul and then see how these icons are popularized. Another example would be the logo for Web.de. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC) — Chicagocubsfan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
These icons are represented on tourism brochures, such as the UAE constantly using the Burg Al Arab to be an icon for their country. Others like the United States might use the Statue of Liberty. National icons is constantly seen in the media, but Wikipedia does not define it in any of its articles. Chicagocubsfan (talk) 23:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (no recommendation for now) - First we need to look at the term "national icon" to make sure we're not getting into original research by using it to refer to these buildings/statues/landmarks. I suspect that the term might be ok (See [34]), but I'm not fully convinced. In any case, renaming the article to List of landmarks representative of their country or something similar would fix that. Second, is this article supposed to be encyclopedic treatment of the topic "national icon", or is it a list of icons/landmarks/buildings? Third, as a list, why limit it to one icon per nation? I think the UK is as much represented by the Tower Bridge or Stonehenge as it is by Big Ben. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It misrepresents the sources for its very first sentence. They state that national icons can be a lot of things, ranging "from stunning natural and man-made wonders to humble food items". The article, instead, states that national icons are just buildings. So that's obviously the intention. But the simple fact is, as can be seen by looking even at just the second source alone, that the concept of a "national icon" covers more than buildings, and there's a long list (at least for Australia) of things that are purportedly national icons. I can find other sources that confer national icon status upon such diverse things as the Indian Pacific, Vegemite, and Paul Hogan. Quoting the second source again: "There is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a national icon.". Uncle G (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lets keep it real, Uncle Hogan will never show up as being a national icon. I believe there is already an article on Uncle Sam those types of articles. This is on national icons, that are man-made structures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadian (talk • contribs) 2009-04-29 23:53:57
        • Paul Hogan is your uncle? You may assert that national icons are man-made structures, but the second source cited in this very article says otherwise. Given a conflict between what sources say, and what you assert to the contrary, sources win, per the Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability policies. You should be happy to learn that your uncle, Paul Hogan, not only already has been a national icon (who fronted for Australia for several years) but is recognized as such by many sources, including this Philadelphia Inquirer article and this Independent article. Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Then tell me how Pablo Neruda would fit in with the Merlion? If you like Paul Hogan so much, then feel free to make a article about him and others like him.Canadian (talk) 01:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So here is my proposal on what we shall do about this article. Instead of just listing one national icon per country, we can list two, or maybe three. For example for Australia, we can also list the Sydney Opera House and also add Capitol Hill for the United States. This should resolve any disagreement people might have on what constitutes the only national icon of a country. The best thing to do is to keep this article narrow to only include man-made structures. Canadian (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The best thing to do is to stop trying to invent Wikipedia's own definitions for things, contrary to the Wikipedia:No original research policy, and to stop trying to resolve disagreements with anything other than the neutral point of view and verifiability from reliable sources. Reliable sources, including the very ones cited in this article, state that "There is no absolute agreement on what constitutes a national icon." and that they can range "from stunning natural and man-made wonders to humble food items".

      Carlos Gardel is a national icon, by the way. (source) Uncle G (talk) 00:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier definition stated that it was supposed to be a building/or a monument. I understand national artists like Carlos Garde and Pablo Neruda, but if we want to have them, then we will need a new article because this one will not suffice. The core gist of the article is about monuments that represent a place and is the most prominent (or more than one) structure of a country, like the examples given in the article. So he is the deal, we should agree to add more than one national icon. This article has nothing original in it, national icons are a known fact and you hear about is constantly in the media ex: Eiffel tower, Taipei 101. Canadian (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Instead of fighting over what is a national icon and what isn't, how about adding a section in the original article to express a POV different from the one expressed by the author. Wikipedia is a place where everyone contributes, if someone does not like it, then why don't they change it. I understand that some places (especially large countries) might have more than one national icon, then feel free to add it. For a small country like Kuwait, it is undeniable they have anything more than one like Kuwait Towers. Read any articles one Kuwait, and you will find that the Towers are inseparable from them, much like the Statue of Liberty is to the USA. Canadian (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. It is also in contradiction to WP:NOT, WP:NPOV and other core policies. Dahn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with fire Utterly subjective, potentially boundless, going nowhere. I don't think anyone could possibly count the number of things described as "national icons" by various sources in any given country, and it looks like no one is even trying - they're just throwing things in there. And, btw, who would have to define those landmarks? Dahn (talk) 02:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The more than 50 citations clearly state. The question you asked is valid, who does determine what constitutes a national icon. Well if you read the article, it happens in a plethora of ways. They are mainly fueled by the media and tourism companies, as with the taj mahal Proof. If it seems "absurd" to you, then tell me how on earth you would group and talk about the Merlion and Kuwait Towers Canadian (talk) 02:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • 1. I recommend you to re-read my post, and see why it doesn't really matter how many sources you provide. Also have a look over WP:SYNTH, and, again, over WP:NOT. 2. Have a look over WP:RS, to see what level of sources is accepted on wikipedia (and yes, them being "fueled by the media and tourism companies" is actually reason not to take them into consideration). 3. How on earth would I group Merlion and Kuwait Towers? I wouldn't. Why on earth should I? And I cannot emphasize WP:NOT enough. Dahn (talk) 03:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Synth is one of the most misused rules in AfDs. If a source says that a particular building or monument is a national icon, there is absolutly no WP:SYNTH there. I think you need to take your own advice, and have a look over WP:Synth again. This article needs to sourced better. It was created by an editor with just over 1,123 edits. I wouldn't blame him for quitting wikipedia after the way his contributions have been treated. How can anyone say that stating "the taj mahal is India's national icon" subjective? If several sources state that it is a "national icon" then we can accept this. Are you refering to WP:IINFO in WP:NOT? If so, please take your own advice, and look over WP:NOT again. WP:IINFO is also one of the most misued rules in AfDs. Ikip (talk) 03:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was actually referring to WP:DIRECTORY, but several other sections also apply. As for WP:SYNTH, I'm being told by the editor that there's something necessarily connecting the things listed there, just because there are "sources" on both of them being icons, and that therefore we need this article. "How can anyone say that stating 'the taj mahal is India's national icon' subjective?" I can. Look, I'm saying it right now. Let's look at it this way: the statement still implies a POV, no matter how popular that POV is. Being popular doesn't mean being objective, and, that said, the argument you're constructing is a fallacy. What's more, you fail to account for what your argument implies: it means that any thing or person whom an RS or several have described as a national icon is a national icon. Now, you may find many sources saying that G W Bush, Gerry Ford, Bill Clinton, Dick Nixon etc. were incompetent, but that doesn't mean you can start a "List of incompetent US Presidents" (or, mutatis mutandis."List of competent US Presidents"). You need a basic objective criterion, not a product of interpretations. As logical as those interpretations may seem to you or me or the next guy, they're still not facts.
Now, India may have a system whereby it designates official national icons, like birds for US states or whatnot. It may, I just don't know. Even in this case, they would still be designated subjectively, and, if an article covering them is really necessary, there's nothing preventing anyone from creating an article on them, under an explicit title ("Officially-designated national icons of India" or something). And the basic point I made would still apply to the
And no, with all due respect for Canadian, I'm not going to circumvent basic logic just because of a supposed to protect the contributions of users with less edits, if and when these are questionable. Dahn (talk) 04:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
RE: "Look, I'm saying it right now. Let's look at it this way: the statement still implies a POV, no matter how popular that POV is."
WP:NPOV: "As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV". Let me repeat that last line, one more time: The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is "POV"
The president's list example is a strawman argument. A kind of negative WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't exist. The only way that I can counter such a strawman, is to list WP:OTHERSTUFF. I won't.
Again, this is not a synth argument. If source "A" says statue of liberty is a national icon, and source "B" says that the taj mahal is a national icon, listing those in an article, independent of each other is not synth. Synth is were you combine to facts with another. Look up the example in synth. Again, this is one of the most misused and misunderstood AfD arguments.
The only way to counter the absurd Taj Mahal argument is to violate WP:OTHERSTUFF exists. Your argument actually is supportive of this article. There are national birds and national animals, which a group of people subjectively decide on, and thats why valid reliable sources quote about these subjects and that is why we have articles on these subjects.
I find this argument silly. I feel like those who want to delete are arguing a sort of Bill Clinton "what is, is" argument. There are certain national images which the average person around the world thinks of, when they think of a particular country. No amount of wikilawyering and silly irrelevant examples can change this fact. I know we are not convincing anyone, so this is my last post here. Ikip (talk) 04:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The elimination of article content cannot be justified under this policy on the grounds that it is 'POV'" Repeat all you want, since I'm not arguing in favor of removing article content "because it is POV", I am telling you that the content already exists (I'm not about to delete the Taj Mahal article). What you're citing is not in reference to what you assume it is, but simply to the basic notion that one cannot remove one of several referenced viewpoints "because it is viewpoint". In fact, let's read what it says immediately after, in the same paragraph: "Article content should clearly describe, represent, and characterize disputes within topics, but without endorsement of any particular point of view. Articles should provide background on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular; detailed articles might also contain evaluations of each viewpoint, but must studiously refrain from taking sides." This not only refutes your position on what the NPOV policy implies, it also suggests yet another time why the article we're discussing is non-compliant: "without endorsement of any particular point of view". This article is structured around a single POV on each item, and simply cannot function.
"Your argument actually is supportive of this article. There are national birds and national animals, which a group of people subjectively decide on, and thats why valid reliable sources quote about these subjects and that is why we have articles on these subjects." I'm not going to get dragged into that sort of sophistry. Let me emphasize that articles on an individual sets of national symbols according to non-ambiguous definitions already exist (see for instance List of Australian bird emblems, List of U.S. state birds, and, what do you know, List of Indian state birds). This ambitious and useless article on the one hand would have to list all such lists into a single one (a pointless and redundant task), to which it adds a lot of clutter about other things which a google search has been able to link to the notion of "national icon", by clumping up POVs regardless of what they mean to each other. And again: whose national icon? who has to call it a national icon, and who can judge whether that's correct or not? whose cultural take? whose historiography? whose tastes? I'm certain that, even in the most restrictive of definitions, Nazi Germany's national icons would not correspond to those of modern Germany, let alone the DDR (the same works for Russia and the Soviet Union, for Qing China, the PRC and the RoC, and, all things considered, even for the great Liberal-Conservative divide). I'm also sure that virtually any English writer who ever reached a level of prominence has once been called a "national icon" by someone. My own editing experience with Romanian and various other subjects presents me with a variety of interpretations in even the most mundane subjects, and that people whom some deem national symbols are scum to others, and vice-versa. How is one supposed to discriminate, and who should one favor? Oh, I see, nobody thought about that...
"There are certain national images which the average person around the world thinks of, when they think of a particular country." When I want to know what the average person of the world thinks of, I'll be sure to ask you. In the meantime, wikipedia doesn't, and this whole argument of yours looks like an appeal to emotion. Dahn (talk) 05:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Utterly inappropriate for an encyclopedia. National icon isn't well-defined. This is just somebody's list of things they think of when they think of country X. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 05:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Since "National icon" has been defined as not just being about buildings, surely it is synonymous with cultural icon and should be merged there? Note that that page is not a list, and also note the AfD discussion on Cultural icon which brings up some of the same points being made here. If the list must be kept, I would support Big Ben's suggestion of renaming the article. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 10:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective list at best, unless we are to have it list everything that reliable sources call a "National icon" which, I fear, would be very messy indeed. I can think f more than two dozen for the US alone, and suspect that other countries have a few more as well. Even Vatican City has the Sistine Chapel, the Pieta, St. Peter's and a few more -- and that is just a small example. Collect (talk) 11:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, the best thing to do is to add more than one object per country. Remember that a cultural icon is not a national icon. Cultural spans over several countries (ex: Kurdish) and many countries do not have a unique culture (ex. Switzerland). A living icon like Pablo Neruda for Chile, cannot be amalgamated with non-living objects like the Merlion. My solution is to add more than one per country. For a start,I will add the Sdyney Opera for Australia. To avoid disagreements over ones of several countries, I have added the Tower Bridge and the Sydney Opera Houses. Hope this will ease some of the arguments presented here. Someone said that its absurd to have an article on Kuwait Towers or the Burj Al Arab or even the Eiffel Tower. Why do you think that their respective governments spent hundreds of millions of dollars constructing them, just for the sake of doing so? ofcourse not, these are national icons. In the case of the Kuwait Towers, a water tower does not have to be that elaborate, it serves a purpose, and it is a NATIONAL ICON. I guess the most sensible solution would be to rename the article as the most recognized national icons. HAVE A LOOK AT THIS Canadian (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, you are now arbitrarily declaring what are considered national icons, and which countries have "no unique culture"? Have you ever even been to Switzerland? Ironholds (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess you misunderstood me, Switzerland does not have a level of unique identity that lets say Japan has. What I meant to say is that there is no such as a Swiss people (you are either German, French or Italian). Even a much large country like Canada lacks a unique identity, and who is better than to say it than Margaret Atwood. I know there might be things that can be called Swiss, but is not unique to them. I am not declaring anything to be a national icon. As for the Swiss question, their cultural identities such as cruisine, or national bird can overlap with other countries neighboring it. For example there are several states in the USA with the state bird of cardinal. When it is a structure in Switzerland, it becomes uniquely Swiss. There are over 60 citations that pretty much state that these things are national icons. Now, I think that major problem or having an unique national icon has been resolved by the addition of multiple widely internationally recognized icons of a certain. Like Australia having both the Opera House and the Harbour Bridge. I guess this arguments will closely mimic Cultural icons' nomination Canadian (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, you are a Swiss person not Italian, or German. It isn't a race certainly, but neither is French. Speaking either Italian, German or French does not make you from Italy, Germany or France. If you apply that standard Belgium doesn't have a national identity (they speak french!) and neither does the US (although I refuse to take responsibility for "aluminum). Again, and I'll emphasise this, it is not your place to arbitrarily decide which nations have a cultural identity, and which icons represent that culture. Ironholds (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Correction: from Wikipedia article on Belgium--An estimated 59% of the Belgian population speaks Dutch (often colloquially referred to as "Flemish"), and French is spoken by 40%.--Buster7 (talk) 02:46, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough, but you see my point. Ironholds (talk) 06:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Problem Solved. There is not problem with the initial definition of national icon. But as stated earlier, I checked out some databases and some how for the USA, there are a lot more national icons than the Statue of Liberty, like the US Capitol.

Here are the fruits of my search:

Capitol: The United States Capitol: Designing and Decorating a National Icon.(Review)(Brief Article). Eric Linderman. Library Journal 125.10 (June 1, 2000): p122.

Washington Monument:Sam Durant at Paula Cooper. Anastasia Aukeman. Art in America 93.11 (Dec 2005): p139(1). Quote: "Any artist who considers pissing on the Washington Monument an interesting analysis and critique of that national icon's function deserves a good long look"

Golden Gate Bridge: Guarding the Golden Gate. Steve Harding. Soldiers Magazine 59.3 (March 2004): p24(5). Quote: "This bridge is a national icon," said CPT John T. Preston of the California Army National Guard's 1st Battalion, 143rd Field Artillery Regiment.

  • So you are cobbling a load of different sources together to say "these, THESE are national icons". In one case it is a National Guard captain saying that; is a national guard captain considered a Reliable Source now? People will call just about anything a national icon; try and make a list on that basis and you'll have more "national icons" for the US than states. Ironholds (talk) 16:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC) oh, and don't remove my comments [reply]
Comment - You know, of 65 references you used, something like 32 fail WP:RS - you might want to take a minute and review that guideline. You still have not defined who decides what a national icon is. You are simply using Google searches to amalgamate totally disparate POVs regardless of how they relate. You may wish to check out WP:SYNTH as well for why that is not acceptable. Shouting "it is a NATIONAL ICON" will not strengthen your argument one iota in the absence of reliable sources actually linking any of these POVs into something resembling coherence. Since you can't find that, deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 16:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then tell me how the article cultural icon is much more reliable? Back to your question, who decides what the cultural icons of a country is? Yet this article provides much more citations from newspapers, blogs and academic journals of what constitutes an icon. The media and the people decide what are national icons of a country. If need be that we have to add thirty or fifty more icons, then be it. Difficult issues should not be avoided, and especially relevant ones like this where the newspapers and magazines constantly state "national icons." And who says wikipedia has to be complete, after time, users wll edit their countries national icon and fix existing ones. One just cannot add them in a span of three days. Canadian (talk) 18:33, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your first question is answered by WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Also, see WP:SPS: "blogs [and] Internet forum postings ... are largely not acceptable" as sources. Again: you're combining disparate POVs with no relation to one another in an attempt to present this phenomenon as a coherent whole. It's not flying. - Biruitorul Talk 18:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is obviously notable and I have added a citation to an encyclopaedia to demonstrate this. We have other articles upon similar topics, such as National symbol and National emblem and they all seem to need work. Deletion is not helpful in this. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:56, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't pointing out those articles actually add the issue that this article is redundant (i. e. a contentfork)? Dahn (talk) 19:53, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The point of those articles is to prove that the concept National icon exists. Look the main point of this entire argument is that we will never have all the examples of national icons. Thats fine with me, the article on Verb in Wikipedia does not list all the verbs, but gives the examples. The wikipedia community is just making things harder for themselves. Canadian (talk) 19:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nice to know you have been appointed Grand High Tutnum of the Wikipedia Community. The main issue is not that we won't have the articles, it is that 1) examples are entirely subjective, 2) your referencing standards allow anything anyone once mentioned as being a "national icon" to be included and 3) it is entirely unofficial. National symbols and emblems are official symbols referenced by the government or whichever nation. These are not. Ironholds (talk) 20:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(To Canadian:) Are you familiar with the word "synonym"? Because wikipedia does not have an article on each and every synonym. And I don't think anyone is disputing that the concept of a "national icon" exists: aside from being, in the singular context when it would still be usable, a synonym of national symbol (which is and will hopefully stay a descriptive article, not somebody's essay about what others should associate with a country), it does not describe anything readily identifiable outside of a POV. See ignoratio elenchi. Dahn (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats the point, this article does not directly talk about national symbols because for example the national symbol of a country may be a cherry flower (as with Japan), but this article deals with structures in particular like the Eiffel Tower and the Burj of Arab. To give you an example, the lion represents Great Britain, but this article would not state the lion, but the Big Ben. Dahn, I think you are missing the point. Canadian (talk) 21:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Canadian, we all understand by now what you think the article could be used for, but that's utterly irrelevant, since we are not here to create articles based on the meaning we prefer they have. As long as "national icon" has been used to define basically every sort of thing, and since there is no relevant, neutral, information it can possibly provide, keeping it around just because you like it is not an option. Now, I believe I've made my point as far as wikipedia content guidelines are concerned, so I'm not gonna get tangled in what is manifestly a sterile debate about your personal preferences. Dahn (talk) 21:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A very interesting and attractive article , well laid out. Almost too notable. Dahn does a good job pointing out the synth / OR issues and the difficulty in adequately capturing what "national icon" means from a global perspective. But similar arguments could be used against many of the more interesting topics. Are we going to cleanse the encyclopaedia of all challenging but interesting articles? I dont think so! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually ideally, yes. If you can point me towards an "interesting" article that is a mass of OR and synth then I'd be happy to AfD it. Inclusion criteria are not based on "this editor thinks it is cool". Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Im going to have to decline that request as I wouldnt want to risk getting you in trouble for not complying with policy. If you come across an article on a notable subject with OR & Synth issues, the thing to do would be to address those issues, not move for deletion. FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Im going to have to decline that request as I wouldnt want to risk getting you in trouble for not complying with policy"; how nice of you. Let me explain, then; if you come across an article on a notable subject so incredibly pisspoor and full of OR and Synth that the only thing to do is to tear it down and start again, you should tear it down and start again. Simple. In addition, how would you make this article not full of OR and Synth? There are no "official" icons. Ironholds (talk) 18:54, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our topics do not require official definitions - Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. For example, I was just reading about the fine topic of Wiener dog racing. Officialdom tends to frown upon this and you won't find this sport in the Olympic games but eppur si muove. The OR here is yours - inventing policies which we don't have. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I phrased that rather badly, my apologies. What I meant was that here you don't have one official/highly respected/whatever source saying "X is the national icon of France", say; it isn't like national birds/coats of arms/so on. In the absence of any uniform set of sources (and there are none) this thing is always going to be Synthesis; cobbling together various sources to say that X is a national icon, or Y. Ironholds (talk) 10:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier. National birds are not unique to any country, the eagle may be America's bird, but there are eagles in Russia and China. Same goes for the maple leaf of Canada, there are maple trees all around the world, or the ceder of Lebanon, heck there is a ceder tree right in front of my house. Again look at the Arab World for example, they all speak arabic and probably all state that the thobe and the abaya are their "icons", but these are not unique to any particular country. UAE has their unique Burj al Arab and Kuwait has their Kuwait Towers. The sources that I provided earlier are from notable databases from journals and magazines where they clearly state that the particular structure is a national icon. The sources provided are balanced from newspapers, journals, book and blogs. How many sources do we need. There are so many things that really does not be told. I do not think we need to be told by a scientific journal that a cow has four legs, that's a well established fact. Much like the Merlion and the Pyramids represent their respective countries. Canadian (talk) 15:18, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, you don't understand what I mean. The maple is not unique to canada, no, but it is the canadian national image. It is on their flag, they consider it a national image, so on. that is what I meant by official recognition. Your sources include blogs (about as RS as "my mate Steve in the pub"), a holiday guide and a publicly editable forum. Those aren't notable. Those aren't journals, or magazines, or anything reliable. Those are dross. Ironholds (talk) 15:22, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I you remembered earlier, I did provide journal entries and magazine articles. Here you are judging the newspaper articles that I provided. I challenge you to refute any of my sources and say that the Taj Mahal is not an icon of India and that the Burj al Arab does not represent the UAE. You just cannot refute any sources (and those does include tonnes of newspaper articles). Then that makes your argument completely baseless. Canadian (talk) 18:11, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Refuting sources? Alright. this is some bloke's blog. this is a travel site anyone can contribute to. Shall I continue? Here's what I mean. You say the Taj Mahal is an icon of india, alright. Maybe some journal writer says the Taj Mahal is the icon of india. Does the indian government say that? If we base "what is an icon" on "something someone wrote a journal article about" how many other icons can you have? How can you have more than one iconic structure for a country? And so on. Please read WP:SYN; if A says something is an "icon", and B says something else is an "icon", it doesn't then follow that they are both comparable national icons. Ironholds (talk) 18:30, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I love how you are picking and choosing. The sources are not based on blogs, but on newspaper articles. The blogs are just there to give a balanced argument to show what the average people, not what the press has to say. What makes the government move legit than the press and the newspapers. Isn't it a fact that during the Second World War, the government scuffled the entire Taj Mahal Source that the government goes to save their national monument (there might be more) and so much more source environmental laws have just passed for the taj mahal. This same argument could be said the others like the Pyramids of Egypt (if only i could read arabic). You are one of those people who needs to hear the government say that cows have four legs to believe it. And you still did not find me a source or a blog that says that the Taj Mahal is not a national icon of India. Canadian (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody gives a shit what the ordinary people say; ordinary people aren't a Reliable Source. Please avoid making personal comments and answer my WP:SYNTH points. Ironholds (talk) 19:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like someone is losing his/her temper there. Instead of huffing and puffing, find me a quote. Then are you undermining democracy where the ordinary voices are heard. Would you like it if Saddam Hussain stated that the Taj Mahal was a national icon of India source. The government has more things to do than to make a list of all things songs/dances/icons/people etc. Sometimes we have to go with the newspapers when the government does not step in. If PhD theses can accept newspaper articles as a sources, then so can wikipedia. And to answer to your question, you do not explicitly need an article talking about how the Taj Mahal is a national indian icon, when it is so obvious. Look I was never arguing that the Taj is the only national icon, just saying it is one. I am aware that not all wikipedia articles need to official source. Canadian (talk) 20:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually yes you do need to cite it; otherwise it is called Original Research. Ironholds (talk) 20:15, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was never a original research. An original article is making mundane arguments like the US Revolution was not a revolution. I am just giving well cited facts. The more that fifty sources that say the same thing. And I am pretty sure that all my sources are cited. You act like you have never heard about national icons before. You are breaking the bureaucracy policy of wikipedia [source Canadian (talk) 20:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:OR Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:46, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as AfD is not the spot to discuss WP:CLEANUP of parts or sections or entries in the article. Take that to its talk page after a proper keep. User:Colonel Warden and User:Canadian have wisely pointed out that precedent has been set for such articles, and User:Ikip and User:FeydHuxtable have pointed out the the article is properly sourced. This article improves Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the introductory text (which more sources) and kill the list. Move the list to List of national icons or something and cut most of the crud but deletion is pretty extreme. Deletion is not cleanup. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Finally I found national icon being defined by a government, so it debunks Ironholds arguments. So I guess that a government defining it means that the argument has ended on the legitimacy of the national icon concept. It states that it can be anything I guess non-living. source. Anyways I guess humans would not count as national icons, because they would be "iconic." Any ideas on how to interpret the government's definition? Anyways I guess these are some other government sites about national icons Britain,Illinois Canadian (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I previously added that link to the National icon article as the reference for Vegemite, so it should have been easy to find. Contrary to what you've written above, it actually states "Most Australians...lists would be just as likely to include a cricketer named Don Bradman,..." so it appears that humans are considered "national icons" sometimes. Here's the point - there is no agreed upon definition for "national icon", which is what people have been trying to say to you in this AfD. And you're further proving the point with those links that you offer. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 20:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree this will be a difficult article to talk about. Then someone should write about the ambiguities as they see it. This article is perfectly legitimate and deals with a tangible issue. I still do not understand why this is up for deletion. If people have disagreement, then they are free to edit it to their liking, but to delete a legit issue that has been recognised by the government and media will be a crime. Canadian (talk) 00:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete: Per WP:OR. The selection seems completely subjective in most cases, and these choices as icons are not official. --Ragib (talk) 04:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems like someone has not even read what was written above and the his argument has been answered a long time ago. Dear Ragib, please read the arguments presented above before making a decision. Now we are not taking about whether this article should be deleted, but how to properly define national icon. Again I ask you to prove to find me a source that states that the mentioned icons are not national icons. You cannot do it. Your agrument is baseless. Canadian (talk) 12:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have read the article, and found totally baseless claims presented with frivolous references. To give an example, you claimed Jatiyo Smriti Soudho as the "national icon" of Bangladesh. That is a very subjective opinion as the Government of Bangladesh never defined anything as national icons, nor is this a widespread opinion. Seems like it applies to the other claims as well. Before I spend any time "disproving your claim", how about *you* spend some time digging up some references showing that these "national icons" are not your subjective opinion but rather have official status? --Ragib (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A reasonably good job so far. Main thing that is needed is expansion and discussion. Perhaps a paragraph for each country, instead of a table. DGG (talk) 01:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as long as it is well-referenced (which is mostly the case so far). I had concerns about this article when I saw the title, but actually it doesn't look particularly problematic. Robofish (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments several people (Biruitorul, Dahn, Delicious carbuncle, Ragib & others) have given for deleting this WP:LISTCRUFT. Spiesr (talk) 01:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. Sure, there are sources, but it's such a subjective subject. Editors will add new "icons" to the list, because they personally feel that those things are national icons. No-one will be able to remove them, because merely showing that there's a strong link with the country allows it to remain. Greg Tyler (t • c) 10:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Clean there are like, 63 references. Any unverifiable ones should be removed, but the article as a whole should be kept.--Unionhawk Talk 15:01, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you see, even if there were like, 630 references, it still wouldn't matter. That's not the point. The point is that we're taking POVs - and they are just people's opinions - from totally disparate sources and contexts, and stringing them all together in this mess of a list. That's not how it's done. We need actual discussion of the notion of a "national icon" in one or preferably more sources, not the admixture of whatever Google supplies for us. Try nominating this at WP:FLC - think it'll ever fly? - Biruitorul Talk 03:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by R'n'B under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 19:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Graeme J Campbell[edit]

Graeme J Campbell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:BIO Brianga (talk) 18:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no claim of significance, importance, notability. I speedy tagged it. Drawn Some (talk) 18:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as A7 per Drawn Some. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:47, 29 April 2009 (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. Regretfully, we do not yet have sufficient information. No prejudice agains re-creation if more becomes available. DGG (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Shahab[edit]

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

I think this one is one is a WP:BLP1E. There is one newspaper reference in which it is saids that it is believed to be connected with terrorism. The link is not valid anymore. Moreover, what happens if he is not connected with terrorism afterall? I think this is against WP:BLP. Magioladitis (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I agree with the nom. munkee_madness talk 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question -- what aspect of the nomination are you agreeing with? The nominator asks "what if he is not connected with terrorism afterall?" But the article doesn't say, never said that he was connected with terrorism. That he was reported to have been captured because he was believed to have a connection with terrorism is referenced, and will remain true, even if he is cleared of this allegation. I regard this nomination as based on a mis-reading of BLP. Articles are not supposed to be hagiographies. When OJ Simpson is arrested, we summarize what WP:RS say he was arrested for, without taking a stand on whether the allegations are "true". When he is charged we cover what WP:RS say the charges were, without taking a stand on whether he was guilty. When he is acquitted we do not remove from his article the fact that he was charged, because those charges might be embarrassing to him. The same should hold true for Abdullah Shahab, I believe. Geo Swan (talk) 17:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 17:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Afghanistan-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. He is an extrajudicial prisoner of the United States at Bagram Theater Internment Facility. That isn't an event, it is a status. We have less information about him than some of the other detainees at Bagram or Guantanomo, but that doesn't make him non-notable. The article makes no judgements about him, so doesn't breach WP:BLP. Fences and windows (talk) 18:08, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are all 600 Guantanamo prisoners (I think this is the number. or?) notable? Do they all need an article? I am not sure about that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I agree that this is article is one big BLP issue. Nothing has been proven, and there doesn't appear to be any wide notability around this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing to analyze here, article doesn't even make a claim to notability.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This person is simply not notable. Being a prisoner does not denote notability.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 04:01, 5 May 2009 (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 Mercantilism.  Sandstein  06:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse-Mercantilism[edit]

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

term with no evidence of wider use. Ironholds (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete only 70+ Google hits, see WP:NEO. Drawn Some (talk) 15:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Google: Results 1 - 10 of about 189 for "reverse-mercantilism".--Anarchysm (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's with duplications. Only 76 without. [35] The larger figure includes, for instance, Wikipedia user talk pages etc. Even the 189 figure still doesn't take it beyond the ream of neologism. Drawn Some (talk) 16:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Citations given: university professors that have used the term in their works.--Anarchysm (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep It would make sense to merge it with Mercantilism. fluoronaut (talk) 21:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Then surely that is a merge, not a keep. Ironholds (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I would hesitate to go along with a merger because I still believe it to be a neologism. Drawn Some (talk) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh certainly, I'm not proposing one. I'm simply indicating that "keep, it should be merged" isn't a "keep" !vote, it is a "merge" !vote. Ironholds (talk) 06:00, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Worth including in mercantilism article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Good idea CoM. It was used in 1950 so: "In reverse mercantilism, the state intervenes to make business more profitable".[36] Also used in Time in 1989: "Trade under Comecon, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance, was based on a curious reverse mercantilism: the imperial country (the Soviet Union) supplied energy and raw materials that the colonies (the satellites) paid for in manufactured goods."[37] Not a neologism (quite an old term), but it seems to have slightly different meanings and not be used that often. Fences and windows (talk) 23:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I disagree with a merge simply because of the fact that there may be some definitions not directly related to mercantilism; by having its own page, it can expand upon these definitions (EDIT: but I guess it could expand anyway under the mercantilism page, until it has some solid definitions- then it could be moved to have its own). Also, contrasting articles exist throughout wiki. --Anarchysm (talk) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted by Nick (talk · contribs) as a blatant copyright violation (non-admin closure). KuyaBriBriTalk 19:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kempinski mokuti lodge[edit]

Kempinski mokuti lodge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No indication that this hotel is notable. Lacks 3rd party references. RadioFan (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as pure spam. I tagged it for speedy delete. Drawn Some (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I restored the nominations that were removed by the author. Kwiki (talk) 17:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as copyright infringement of [38] and [39] (infringement of the latter has already been deleted). Removal of all copyrighted text leaves us with only EL. KuyaBriBriTalk 18:56, 29 April 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Croatia–Iceland relations[edit]

Croatia–Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. only minor bilateral agreements [40] LibStar (talk) 14:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Rather than continue to list a dozen of these articles daily, can't we wait for the discussion on this topic to conclude and let that work-group sort out this mess? These articles can wait for that, they are not so harmful. That way they can be deleted en masse and without discussion here. Much more efficient that way. Drawn Some (talk) 14:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your suggestion amounts to an automatic "Keep" for any series of stubs, no matter how utterly unencyclopedic, just because a very few people are attempting to create a notability guideline. Most such efforts drag on with endless disputation before they are abandoned as failed efforts. The guideline should, rather be WP:N, where a few words could be added to reflect the fact of what the outcomes of these AFDs show to be the consensus of the community. Guidelines reflect practice, not what a few fans of something or opponents of it want the rules to be. See past efforts to create guidelines for schools, religious congregations, shopping malls, persons of nobility and news stories, among many others. Edison (talk) 15:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I was going to say that I agree with what Edison said below about 200 articles on bilateral relations, but I see you are Edison again. My point is that there may be almost 20,000 of these articles out there and only a few hundred or a few thousand at the most may be justified. If we are to go through and consider thousands of them individually it is a huge waste of time. Perhaps there could be an AfD for all of them under ten lines without references or something like that then. I am for deleting them but believe there must be a better way to go about it. Drawn Some (talk) 15:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Edison (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - random pairing with not a hint of notability. - Biruitorul Talk 16:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is exactly what I despise about the proposal that we wait on that damn discussion. By no means should these articles be "deleted en masse and without discussion". And by no means should we keep all these mass-produced articles without letting people analyze them. I don't see anything notable about the relations between Croatia and Iceland, neither of which has an embassy in the other's capital. As always, I'm willing to reconsider if someone who shows something that might be evidence of notability. Mandsford (talk) 21:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--I'm really just going by WP:GNG in most of these cases, and in this case, there seems to be no coverage. Enumerations of how many articles we might have or discussons of whether an embassy or a consulate is enough for automatic notability for me just muddy the waters. Drmies (talk) 21:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my usual standards - not enough major contacts between the two nations. Bearian (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. —GregorB (talk) 19:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Ikip (talk) 09:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this stub, devoid of any sources that might begin to establish notability for a relationship of so little value to the participants that they don't bother with embassies in each other's capitals. I can find none on my own.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:58, 5 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Argentina–Iceland relations[edit]

Argentina–Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another completely laughable combination (one of the worst I've seen) from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies and google news search turns up nothing except that both countries share economic problems [41]. and if you're going to say keep with the standard text of wait for centralised discussion, seriously ask yourself is Iceland-Argentina notable? LibStar (talk) 14:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Edison (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for utter lack of notability through reliable sources. - Biruitorul Talk 16:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A brief news search "iceland+and+argentina"&btnG=Search+Archives&hl=en&ned=us&um=1 and "argentina+and+iceland"&hl=en&ned=us&um=1&sa=N&start=0 doesn't show much. Both nations have a large fishing industry; but one is in the North Atlantic, the other in the South Pacific, so there's no overlap of territory, and unless there's a O-FEC that is to fish as OPEC is to petroleum, I don't see that they work together. Mandsford (talk) 21:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is a "maybe" - I'd need to do more research. I found a 1944 state visit.[42] Bearian (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC) Also a 1958 article.[43]. Bearian (talk) 00:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago editor copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Delete this unsourced stub, for which i can find no reliable sources that would begin to establish this is a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on sources I've found. Bearian (talk) 20:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Wow, the deeper I go into Googleland, the more ifnormation I find. Please see the artcile as it now appears. Bearian (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Nelson[edit]

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

Extensive piece, but just seems to be a CV, not particularly notable. Oscarthecat (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete not notable. Though I sincerely hope he gets his holiday house in France renovated to his liking. Drawn Some (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; not notable, and borderline spamcruft. Ironholds (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete; not notable CV and he supports Leeds Tresiden (talk) 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a resume posting site -- Whpq (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted (A2) by Syrthiss (talk · contribs). Non-admin closure. AnturiaethwrTalk 19:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ยุวชนวิจัยภัทรวิทยา[edit]

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

Article has no English translation. English Wikipedia is not a foreign language article. ApprenticeFan talk contribs 14:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Per criteria for speedy deletion, if the article exists on another version of Wikpedia it should be speedy deleted. If not, it should be listed for translation. It's really not appropriate to list it here in either circumstance. Drawn Some (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion --- it is written in Thai, which Google Translate handles quite badly. I'll wait for the opinion of a Thai-speaker whether this is notable and worth listing on the translation requests page, or should just be deleted in place. But it'll be a waste of everyone's time if we close this debate yet just end up speedying the damn thing or coming back here two weeks later because no one found it worth translating. cab (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. cab (talk) 15:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete As stated above, if it is a copy an an article in Thai Wikipedia, it should be speedily deleted. The Thai Wikipedia, does have what appears to be the same article of the same name:[44]. The link may not work, because the cut and paste can't deal with the characters. The article there was only recently created, on "14:39, 29 เมษายน 2552" (seems to be today, since that's teh date on their "recent changes." I speak no Thai), and appears to lack references. Edison (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per my comment above and Edison's revelation and link. Drawn Some (talk) 15:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or translate - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This article was listed today also at Pages Needing Translation. Ritual requires that it be given two weeks there before being nominated for deletion. If this has an article about it in a foreign language Wikipedia, it may be about a worthy subject. I cannot tell. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It could still be translated as it will continue to exist in the Thai Wikipedia. Once translated it can be placed here. The usual rationale for not deleting while awaiting translation is inapplicable because the information will not be lost. Drawn Some (talk) 18:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:A2, as it is an a "foreign language article[s] that exist[s] on another Wikimedia project". Specifically, it exists on the Thai wiki. Cheers. I'mperator 18:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Edison Tresiden (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Läng[edit]

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

Peter Läng is not a notable footballer, failed WP:athlete, as he just played in Challenge League and he is not a Thai youth international, but Swiss youth internationals[45] Matthew_hk tc 14:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep; He may not be very notable but he is as notable as many other footballers that have articles on wikipedia, including many players in the same league. Also the page is referenced so I can't see any reason to delete it. Tresiden (talk) 18:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that other players from his league have articles is just a case of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And the only reference is to a listing on a stats site which just has question marks in every column, so hardly in-depth coverage..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; fails WP:ATHLETE. And if other players in the same league are of equal notability, they they should also be deleted. GiantSnowman 11:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:ATHLETE --Angelo (talk) 08:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Players in a fully professional league are considered notable per the guideline. I don't see anyone determining whether the league Peter plays in fits the bill. Without actual research being put in, the claim he fails the guideline is just a claim, not a real argument for deletion. - Mgm|(talk) 09:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've found this article that mentions of Swiss Challenge League as semi-pro [46]. Considering also that Challenge League teams hail mostly from small towns, I definitely doubt it could be fully professional. --Angelo (talk) 09:56, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very unlikely that the Challenge League is fully pro - and if there's no evidence that there is, we should err on the side of caution. пﮟოьεԻ 57 10:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A few matches at a second tier national league (pro or not) is not notable - Nabla (talk) 18:49, 7 May 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kasper T. Toeplitz[edit]

Kasper T. Toeplitz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about a music composer includes no references, doesn't appear to be notable, no reliable and independent sources available, page appears to have been created and mostly written by its subject. Conical Johnson (talk) 08:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – Sorry to disagree here, but I found a number of articles and references concerning this individual, as shown here[47]. Granted most, if not all, are in French. However, they are from third party – creditable – reliable and verifiable sources. I'll start sourcing over the next day or two. Thanks. ShoesssS Talk 12:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - No need to be sorry, I'd rather have the page if can be shown to be notable and can be sourced. If there are only French sources, though, perhaps this means this guy is not notable for English Wikipedia? I'm not really sure what the policy is there, WP:NONENG doesn't really elaborate. For example, an American high school might be relevent enough to warrant a page on English WP, but not on French WP since it is so far removed from relevence in French culture.Conical Johnson (talk) 17:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, the word English in "English Wikipedia" only refers to the language we use to write. It has no bearing on the topics we should include. Policies and guidelines about referencing and sources say that English language sources are preferred where available, but that sources in any language are acceptable. - Mgm|(talk) 09:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I don't speak French, but I took a look at his French WP page[48] and I can tell that he wrote it with basically the exact same wording as he wrote his English page, which was terrible before I rewrote it. If anyone who can write French well would like to redo his page using my English version as a guide, that would be great. He didn't write it in an encyclopedic way at all, more like an artist statement, and further, he writes about some of his achievements, especially the "BassComputer" as if it were some revolutionary new instrument design which is at once a bass and a computer. In fact, it's simply a custom bass which he interfaces with a computer, something that many thousands of people do every day.Conical Johnson (talk) 17:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Shoessss. Sources indicate notability, it doesn't matter what language they are in. Edward321 (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Shoessss. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2009 (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. Not really my subject, so perhaps I'm qualified as neutral. I can however read some German, and the German magazine sources are sufficient to show notability. As for some of the delete arguments: that business software is less notable than consumer software is not supported by policy. The article seems information, not promotional. Sources in the professional field are appropriate ones to show notability, they don't have to be general mass-consumer mainstream, just respected and reliable in its subject. DGG (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0[edit]

Tine 2.0 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

While the article seems to be about a fully developed and published web browser groupware system, I don't believe it meets the general notability guidelines. Hoping to be proven wrong, though! KhalfaniKhaldun 06:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am changing my stance to keep, as long as the notability Unomi has claimed is written into the article instead of just being discussed here. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be my guest to include the references I have brought up. Since you brought the article here because you were under the impression that there were notability issues and you now seem satisfied that notability has been established I consider this discussion over and that the reasonable outcome is keep. As the person who originally brought the article here it would only be right if you edited the article to reflect the sources. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tine 2.0 is not a webbrowser. Tine 2.0 is webbased groupware solution. Tine 2.0 meets the same criteria like any other project listed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_collaborative_software#Open_source_or_free_software . (Lkneschke (talk) 06:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC))— Lkneschke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That list is in no way related to Wikipedia policy, though. Being on that list does not require an established notability, and this article does not establish it either, or even provide any reliable secondary sources. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Qualifies for a blatant advertising CSD, even. Just because it isn't (fully?) commercial doesn't exempt it from the anti-spam policies. 9Nak (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CSD#G11 only allows for deletion of articles that are entirely promotional material. In this case the article is salvageable because a rewrite of the lead (and addition of reliable sources) would actually result in a good start-class article, since the history and features section are not especially spammy. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:33, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tine 2.0 is opensource and not commercial software. I also added more external resources about Tine 2.0.(Lkneschke (talk) 09:59, 23 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Advertising has two possible goals: increasing revenue and increasing brand awareness. Non-commercial products can still be advertising if they're trying to increase awareness of what they're offering. - Mgm|(talk) 09:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seemingly fails to meet the notability and verifiability guidelines. Falls under WP:SOAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 17200+ ghits on "tine 2.0". Notable within its field enough to be nominated as runner up for 2 awards. Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl. Unomi (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did a Google search, too, before nominating. The first several pages of hits were blogs, aka no reliable sources. Please read WP:GHITS and WP:GOOGLE#Interpreting results.
Also, to address the rest of your comment (so as to not make it seem like I'm picking at the smallest flaw), you're going to have to demonstrate the notability of those awards for that argument to stand. Awards given out by random people for the sake of doing so don't contribute to the notability of this subject. On top of that, you just said yourself that Tine 2.0 isn't notable. "Groupware is generally not something that is widely talked about, especially if it is opensource, and by orders of magnitude less if it happens to be under the much maligned agpl." = non-notable. KhalfaniKhaldun 21:00, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.openusability.org/index.php/about/ is not just 'some blog' also, I might add that for software online sources are perfectly relevant, you might for example refer to the discussion that went on at exim4 regarding the use of maillist posts.
That something is not widely talked about does not make it not-notable. If that were the case we should probably just mirror 'The National Enquirer'. The point I was making was that it is a fairly narrow and specialized field and that the lack of coverage is not surprising, as you can see with the lack of coverage on other groupware projects. If it is perceived that there is advertising or soapboxing going on, that can be resolved through editing. Do you think that www.trophees-du-libre.org is giving away 4.500 euros per category with a minimum of 500 euro for each nominee just for the sake doing so? The fsf seems to think it is notable. So does Linux Magazine. The French government and the EU seem to be sponsors of the awards. Unomi (talk) 14:43, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, so maybe you're right. If you'll notice in my original nomination, I said I was hoping to be proven wrong. Can you improve the article to demonstrate notability, then? Just bringing up all these things here isn't helping the article any! ;) KhalfaniKhaldun 20:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, once notability has been established it doesnt go away, as you seem to have all this time on your hands that you go around putting articles up for deletion willy nilly perhaps it would be educational for you to get a feeling for what it is like to improve some of these articles. Unomi (talk) 21:01, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails notability requirements, blatant advertising/soapboxing. Verbal chat 20:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Can someone explain why Tine 2.0 is not noteable but other less know opensource groupware projects are? Just have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware. Have a look at ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for example. Why got pages about these projects accepted? I don't see any difference. Tine 2.0 is at least noteable as these projects. You should apply the same rules to all comparable opensource projects. This means either you start a discussion to delete all comparable pages or you need to keep the Tine 2.0 page. Any other decision would be to act arbitrarily. (Lkneschke (talk) 05:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You are correct on both counts. Neither of the those articles demonstrate notability either, and since you have pointed them out to me I am nominating both for deletion. However, you should read this essay on why your argument is not actually a significant argument against deletion. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to an essay or a policy somewhere on Wikipedia. If you wanted to know why it fails to meet notability guidelines, you just needed to read the linked article. KhalfaniKhaldun 05:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I read the links, but I don't see the problem. Tine 2.0 is noteable after reading the links. Just marking ProjectPier and Simple Groupware for deletion is still inconsistent. You will also need to mark all other projects listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:FreeCollabManageSoftware for deletion. Either we have a page listing the important opensource collab projects here at Wikipedia or not. If we have this list it should be complete. If this page does not belong to Wikipedia, you need to mark all opensource collab projects for deletion as they all share the same level of notability. By the way, whenever you see words in blue, it is frequently linking to another opensource project which shares the same notability like Tine 2.0. (Lkneschke (talk) 10:55, 26 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tine 2.0 is not only of interest for business users. Any organisation requires tools like Tine 2.0 and groupware in general. Sourceforge is the biggest opensource community. Trophees du libre is most important opensource price here in europe. The FSF who supports Trophees du libre is the most important opensource supporter. Just because you don't know about these organisations does not mean that they are unimportant. Try to inform you, before posting here.
What is spam about implementing CRM and ERP? The CRM functionality is implemented and parts of ERP too. What is the problem about mentioning it?
Tine 2.0 is unique in that it combines groupware, CRM and ERP. You don't need to install 3 different applications, but can use one opensource software. And Tine 2.0 is designed to support the whole organisation. That's a fact and no spam.(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete I am surprised to see all this discussion about unreferenced spam. Drawn Some (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is no spam. Tine 2.0 is as important as any other opensource groupware project mentioned here on wikipedia. Why is a page about Tine 2.0 spam, but about other opensource groupware projects not?(Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, so let's pretend it's not spam even though it looks, smells, and tastes like spam and comes in a can. An article needs to be verifiable. I also see you seem to be on Wikpedia only to....promote...this software. Drawn Some (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes this is my first article. But it is not my intention to spam. I'll improve the article to make the facts more verifiable. (Lkneschke (talk) 04:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
The introduction got rewritten. Hopefully it does not smell like spam anymore. (Lkneschke (talk) 07:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
I reworked the history section. I'm aware that it needs some polish, but maybe it goes in the right direction.(Lkneschke (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Tine 2.0 is an important groupware project and this page is no spam, like any other page about groupware projects here on wikipedia is no spam. If you think this article can be improved, gives us a hint what is missing. Just vote for Delete because you know nothing about opensource and groupware in general does not help making this article better. (Lkneschke (talk) 15:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep Notable enough. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The discussion has two vectors: notability and quality. Tine 2.0 is Notable enough for sure, while on the quality of the article should be worked on. - corneliusweiss (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of cours, this "vote" is your first and only contribution to Wikipedia. This is not a vote. Drawn Some (talk) 17:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My intend was to point out, that this discussion is about two points. While IMHO notability for this page is given, the quality (especially of the first paragraph) was bad and could lead to the conclusion that this article is spam. Nevertheless I made my first contribution and reworked this paragraph to give a precise classification of the software Corneliusweiss (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep: Seems quite notable to me. see Golem.de, linux-magazin, and silicon.de. These references are in German, but are still valid in my view. These references are also quite specialized press, but, after all (and as an example), computer games have perfectly satisfactory references from specialized press (gaming magazines, sites etc). Article needs a clean up, not deletion. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Gaming magazines are mainstream press, and can address notability. If we were to look at gaming industry trade press to establish notability, then we would need a vast amount of it (there is such a thing). They should be treated as "local" (the trade) newspapers for establishing notability, and we would need a great deal of them with significant coverage. Notability could be established by a few mainstream references with significant coverage, I don't see these yet. Verbal chat 08:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Golem.de and Heise.de are the most important/bigest German news sites. They should easily qualify as mainstream references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lkneschke (talk • contribs) 08:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply to comments: Not sure that size, readership, or specialization matters. As my last comment suggested, specialized press is often used and can be a good reference. My thinking is that the sources seem to meet the "third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" guideline found at WP:SOURCES. Software review magazines, and their internet equivalent, often meet these guidelines. Yours ever, Czar Brodie (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the sources provided by User:Czar Brodie are a start, but I'm not sure they're really mainstream enough to address the notability requirement. The closing admin should keep in mind that of the "Keep" votes, one is an SPA, one registered just to comment here, and another failed to provide any rationale whatsoever, and weigh those arguments accordingly. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, The closing admin should note that some of the "Delete" votes seem to fail to read "keep" sources, arguments and sigs. Some like Lankiveil above resorts to ad hominem and poisoning the well.
trophees-du-libre is a well funded FOSS award that gives out 4,500 euro per category, the award is sponsored by the EU and the French government amongst others. This award is generally understood as being notable. The editor who brought the article here for deletion has acknowledged that the notability requirement for this article has been met, any remaining problems can be resolved thru editing. <3 Unomi (talk) 05:19, 2 May 2009 (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. After examining each comment, I've determined that the arguments in favor of deletion bear more weight than those in favor of retaining the article. As a result, there is consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Three's Company in popular culture[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Three's Company in popular culture (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

fancruft and trivia Aurush kazeminitalk 05:56, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Unencyclopedic and mostly just a collection of useless information. What this amounts to is meta-trivia where one TV show makes reference to another TV show. Totally useless and the reason Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as a project.George Pelltier (talk) 05:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Highly appropriate. The references from one show to another are what constitute popular culture. If both the references and what's being referred to are notable, that's sufficient justification. DGG (talk) 03:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. if they're so notable, they can go in the Three's Company article, what exists now is a list of miscellaneous facts ("trivia"). Per the Wikipedia guidelines on trivia, "Trivia sections should be avoided. If they must exist, they should in most cases be considered temporary, until a better method of presentation can be determined. Lists of miscellaneous information can be useful for developing a new article, as they represent an easy way for novice contributors to add information without having to keep in mind article organization or presentation; they can just add a new fact to the list. As articles grow, however, these lists may become increasingly disorganized and difficult to read. A better way to organize an article is to provide a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation, providing context and smooth transitions, whether in text, list, or table." Aurush kazeminitalk 05:08, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It should be merged into the main Three's Company article. There is absolutely no need for a stand alone article. Alternatively, I jokingly propose we start several new articles: Three's Company in unpopular culture, Three's Company, a homoerotic analysis, and Three's Company, a defense of the polyamorous lifestyle disguised as a sitcom. --Nik (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Other stuff shouldn't exist" really isn't much of a better argument than "other stuff exists", now is it? DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – There's enough usage of this term in cultural references, psychology and sociology topics that it warrants a separate page.—RJH (talk) 22:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – large heading split from main article per WP:SPLIT. Merge is possible as the main article would still be around 30 kilobytes. feydey (talk) 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as an appropriate subtopic of an extremely notable television show. This is not a "trivia section", it is in fact a list of cultural references and allusions in "a logical grouping and ordering of facts that gives an integrated presentation", as the guidelines suggest we do. DHowell (talk) 07:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an assemblage of the most worthless trivia, such as:
"At the beginning of the U2 song "Vertigo", Bono exclaims "unos, dos, tres, catorce" which translates to "some, two, three, fourteen", This Spanish language counting, or miscounting, is possibly derived from the Three's Company episode "Doctor in the House"[1]"

There may be three or four items worth moving to the article on Three's Company. Drawn Some (talk) 14:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • That's not there anymore; thanks for pointing it out. Drmies (talk) 21:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing but trivial WP:OR with little to no bearing on the Three's Company article. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge with Three's Company - Glorified trivia section. Useful info should be merged. smooth0707 (talk) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The notable and verifiable bits like coverage in humor magazines. A merge would be fine too, but should be discussed on appropriate article talk pages. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The verifiable information can be sent to Three's Company, while the rest can be junked. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:01, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:OR and trivia. I doubt that a list of every time a mid-range American sitcom has been mentioned in any other media is useful to anyone apart from the most rabid of fans. No objection to userification if someone for some reason wants to move this content offsite. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:23, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete A list of trivia does not an encyclopedic article make. Some of the relevant material can be moved to Three's Company but passing trivial mentions of the show don't belong here in any article. None of this iinformation has been shown to be encyclopedic through discussion in reliable sources so the original research claim also appears to be valid. ThemFromSpace 19:42, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a combination of original research, unreliably sourced, or simply not sourced at all. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 00:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is encyclopedic to see how a popular series influences many other notable series over time. There is enough information to warrant its own article, no sense erasing the majority of it to have just a token amount put in the main article, knowing someone would call that trivia and erase it entirely within the next month anyway. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Merely a listing of trivia. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 17:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If there was a mathematical way to tally the impact of TV on future TV, this would have one of the highest ratings. It is surprisingly well referenced but could be improved. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivia listing.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 6 May 2009 (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. Wizardman 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Select Baseball[edit]

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

Unsourced article about unpopular game. Alexius08 (talk) 02:20, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Basically a dictionary definition for youth baseball, which is covered in articles on Little League, AAU, etc. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agree with the above. Only claim to notability is a vague mention of being "very popular". No sources cited. JIP | Talk 17:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite The term is notable, and with a better article, would be worthy of a keep. However, as written, this article is not it. Select Baseball is not simply a term for youth baseball, it is a subsection of youth baseball where a team is formed under a special coach or coaches (e.g., a professional) to play a higher caliber of baseball than what would ordinarily be offered, to travel, and/or to get additional instruction. Select teams are generally financed by parents and cost a great deal more for the child to play on than a standard youth team. Eauhomme (talk) 05:49, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have rewritten the article now in an attempt to rescue it. It is not sourced, since I don't have time to research it. I was a youth baseball umpire for 15 years, and it is written from that perspective. Please feel free to do whatever is needed to improve it, source it, rescue it, whatever. Eauhomme (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 13:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is pure spam. No claim of importance or significance for this for-profit youth sports scheme. The creator also inserted a reference in another article and these are his only edits. I have removed the spam links from both articles until it is deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 13:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. -- I'mperator 18:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not referenced and not noteable Tresiden (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glowelle[edit]

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

Notability. This is a product that was just launched by Nestle' August 2008, and doesn't seem to be notable. A search for the term Glowelle in Google Trends shows pronounced spikes in correspondence to marketing campaign launches, and no other background buzz. Most people looking at these numbers would conclude that the Wikipedia article was entered as a tool for internet commerce and word-of-mouth marketing campaign. P.S. I was confused comparing the guidelines in Articles_for_deletion and DEL as to what to do exactly. Perhaps tags I added to the article are not in the required orders, or superfluous.--Gciriani (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete no assertion of importance or significance or notability. Drawn Some (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Drawn Some. Deor (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional. Wikipedia is not a tool for free commercial campaigns. DianaLeCrois  : 01:00, 30 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Miller (actor)[edit]

Danny Miller (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Challenged prod, no indication that this actor may meet WP:CREATIVE RadioFan (talk) 13:03, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per guidelines. Drawn Some (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable Tresiden (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List_of_minor_Emmerdale_characters_(2003)#Aaron_Livesy. To establish notability, sources need to be independent. Such a thing is not needed to establish uncontroversial facts as part of a larger articles. Since Emmerdale is what most people will know him for I think a redirect to that is the best idea. (I'm preferring a redirect over leaving a direct link at the Danny Miller dab page so the edit history for the relevant external link can be retained) -- Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Either delete or keep, do not redirect as above. That can lead to confusion if you link the actor on the articel of another TV programme, and it then links to an Emmerdale page. --UpDown (talk) 21:09, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep - I withdraw my nom. in light of the responses below, further poking around and WP:SNOW. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:14, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lebrecht Photo Library[edit]

Lebrecht Photo Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable organization. No significant non-trivial coverage. Fails WP:V. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep References seem to confirm it's existence and the interview seems pretty substantial to me. I think it's worth including in the encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Collection is notable for how often its photos are included in other peoples works. I would consider that significant coverage and notability for a bunch of photographs. Exit2DOS2000•T•C• 22:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There seems to be enough notability upon research, although the article may need further improvement and reference gather by its editors. It is also simple to confirm the existence of the organization. DianaLeCrois  : 01:04, 30 April 2009 (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 as a G4 in its earliest forms, and a G8 in its later ones. The early version was an exact copy of the page deleted via this deletion discussion and deletable under G4. Later it was a redirect to a nonexistent page, deletable under G8. Euryalus (talk) 12:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bon Wen (conlang)[edit]

Bon Wen (conlang) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
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. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of performances on Top of the Pops[edit]

List of performances on Top of the Pops (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely unsourced list with little useful information. Whilst I would agree that a verifiable list of performances with details such as transmission dates would be useful, this is nothing of the kind. It needs some kind of official BBC playlist sourcing. From the talk page it appears the primary source for this list is extracts shown on "Top Of The Pops 2" which (a) does not provide the original transmission date, and (b) isn't necessarily a 100% reliable indication that TOTP ever showed the act (for reasons unknown it may have been edited out / not shown due to technical problems etc). As nothing in the article is reliable it should be removed and recreated only if it can be done so with references. I42 (talk) 11:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As this would be useful if properly sourced, shouldn't it be marked for cleanup rather than delete? 217.40.170.134 (talk) 13:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As none of it is reliably sourced then cleanup would mean removing everything; anything not so removed would taint any "good" content. I42 (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant Delete Unless refences can be found i don't think this can be kept unforunatly. Tresiden (talk) 19:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep AfD is not cleanup. Tag it for references (or better still, try to find them yourself!) Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are hundreds of books which might be used as sources and no doubt thousands of other references of other sorts. None of this information seems controversial as it was a major chart show. If the nominator wants to improve the article, he will finding working on it more productive than bringing it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a common reaction, and yet one which is not supported by policy. In the absence of me or anyone else providing sources (and this AfD gives a week for that to happen) then deletion must ensue. This is spelled out in WP:BURDEN. Either we should delete the article completely or pare it back to nothing, and only what is verifiable should be re-added. The latter could be done without an AfD it is true, but as would effectively be deletion I considered that this should only be done with consensus. I42 (talk) 08:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:BURDEN states If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. But we see that there are many such sources and so we're good. What you're talking about are the individual entries, but that is a matter of content editing not deletion. The place to discuss them is the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Colonel Warden showed the sources exist. The need to provide the sources has been met; after that WP:NODEADLINE applies. That said, the list isn't actually complete. When a TOTP producer said he hated] S Club Juniors and didn't want to put them on the show, it was regarding their first single "One Step Closer" which isn't listed. I have no idea if they actually performed Puppy Love on the show. - Mgm|(talk) 09:19, 1 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of full HD 1080P PS3 games[edit]

List of full HD 1080P PS3 games (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This page consists entirely of original research that is not possible to source reliably as, on the whole, this information isn't available. Most existing websites which provide such information are fan-created and are not reliable. The article also contains many factual errors. ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 10:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pure original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Origional useless research Tresiden (talk) 19:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there are some sources out there, such as [49] and [50], which provides verifiability of some PS3 games (only a couple of them are verified to be 1080p), but nothing which I can see would quantify a whole list. As the nom pointed out above, some of the other links that I have seen may reference such a list out there, but they originate from online forums, which doesn't show verifiability. MuZemike 19:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial intersection of subject with an attribute. The lead already says most TVs don't even use that resolution, so it's not even useful to people playing the games. - Mgm|(talk) 09:11, 1 May 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Liana Mendoza[edit]

I would like to create the page again as Liana Mendoza has built up her resume with credits including reoccurring roles in American Horror Story: Hotel and Scandal. Both prominent television series. Is there a way to get an adminisrator approval on this? Artthings (talk)

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

I found this article when an editor tagged it for CSD, but the editor gave a misguided rationale, so this is a bit of a procedural nomination. Besides having no references, it appears that the subject does not satisfy the entertainer criteria for notability. Law type! snype? 08:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not meeting notability guidelins. Drawn Some (talk) 14:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not even any of the films/tv programmes are notable enough to have there own pages, only throwing up this one when you search for them Tresiden (talk) 19:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's not an entirely valid reasoning. A lack of own wikipedia articles for the films and tv shows could be because no one created them yet, rather than a lack of notability. After all, Mendoza didn't have a page until now either. Her filmography shows an awful lot of general character names like 'dancer' though. I am not in the position to investigate the named characters, but that is what should happen. - Mgm|(talk) 09:07, 1 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Australia–Belarus relations[edit]

Australia–Belarus relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. Aust govt describes trade as modest. also no mention of any bilateral agreements [51] non resident ambassadors.google news search doesn't reveal much except they've competed in the same sporting competitions. [52] LibStar (talk) 07:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Canley (talk) 08:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - aside from press releases issued by the Belarusian regime, there ain't much there. - Biruitorul Talk 14:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Edison (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google news search turns up more sports articles than any nation-combi-nation that I've seen so far. Rowing, tennis, women's basketball, gymnastics, etc.-- but no diplomatic games. Mandsford (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my usual standards - no appreciable contacts between the two nations. Bearian (talk) 00:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. More Australia-Foobar relations cruft. WWGB (talk) 03:16, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Switzerland relations[edit]

Iceland–Switzerland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident ambassadors. the Swiss Govt says Trade between the two countries is marginal. LibStar (talk) 07:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - as the nominator notes, even the Swiss government pays little attention to this relationship. - Biruitorul Talk 14:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated. Edison (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A news search doesn't show any dialogue between the two. They're both non-EU European nations, but like the deleted Chile-Colombia relations, being on the same continent does not necessarily mean a bilateral relationship. Mandsford (talk) 21:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per my usual standards., but Nom has failed to assume a good faith effort. Bearian (talk) 00:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC) I can understand the nominator's lack of patience, but please let's handle each stub on a case-by-case basis. Bearian (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Regrettably, that's what we've been forced to do by the zealous. So be it. Most are still getting deleted as they should be.--BlueSquadronRaven 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy deleted. Pages like these do not get to hang around. See the log.--chaser - t 21:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death rap[edit]

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

This is a fringe / non-existent genre of music. Delete. JBsupreme (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Iceland relations[edit]

Cyprus–Iceland relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random laughable combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. there is not even 1 single agreement between these 2 countries according to Cypriot foreign ministry [53] LibStar (talk) 05:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - they're both islands, but not much more can be said about this pairing. - Biruitorul Talk 06:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable intersection. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.
  • Delete per my usual standards; no major bilateral contacts. Bearian (talk) 00:37, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago he copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Keep no attempt to WP:PRESERVE or WP:BEFORE Ikip (talk) 02:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And how would you know that? Please address the article on the merits. - Biruitorul Talk 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete i find no reilable sources that discuss this obscure bilateral relationship, let alone multiple non-trivial mentions about the relatinship. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:56, 5 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Algeria–Cyprus relations[edit]

Algeria–Cyprus relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. 2 minor agreements [54] LibStar (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - random pairing with no content, created as part of a destructive spree. - Biruitorul Talk 05:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-notable intersection. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.
  • Weak keep - minor agreements, some bilateral and multilateral contacts; a case can be made to rescue this one. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets and exceeds the standard of WP:N. I see no argument why this is a highly unusual article that merits a highly irregular treatment. [55][ + [56] + [57] + [58] + [59] + [60] + [61] + [62] + [63] + [64] + [65] + [66] + [67] + [68] + [69] - one can of course dig up more, but this pretty clearly demonstrates that the article exceeds the standards of WP:N by an enormous margin. WilyD 12:36, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any evidence that "cooperation agreements" mean anything (ie, meet the "significant coverage" requirement of WP:GNG), or are you just taking random bits of news stories and attempting to create the impression of notability? And do you really think an article could be written out of that stuff? - Biruitorul Talk 15:01, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Since anyone who has examined the facts will be forced to conclude the coverage is well beyond the "significant" standard of WP:N, I will suggest you review the sources before commenting on them. It's pretty clear one could write an article out of the sources I've cited, if they didn't have to spend all their time dealing with indiscriminate and spurious AFDs. WilyD 21:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I reviewed them, and they're the usual trivia no one would think of including anywhere but in this nonsense series of articles. Once again: they do not cover the relationship, they cover what you deem to make up the relationship, which breaches WP:SYNTH. And no, an article could not be written about this, at least not one meeting the usual criteria, though you're free to prove me wrong whenever. - Biruitorul Talk 21:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - per WilyD. Sources have now been added showing the significant Algerian support for Cyprus' unification, admittedly primary but there is a central discussion about a possible new guideline that might explicitly state these are sufficient to establish notability for a bilateral relationship. Per Wiley's post above secondary sources are available as pay to view, and likely others could be found by those who speak Greek or Arabic. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:26, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speculating on a centralized discussion's outcome is not a valid retention argument, and primary sources fail, and will continue to fail, WP:GNG. - Biruitorul Talk 19:37, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • That I showed it exceeds the usual standard of WP:N is a valid argument, though, of course. WilyD 21:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The multiple reliable sources on relations between Cyprus and Algeria shown by WilyD demonstrate easily passing WP:NOTABILITY. And those are only English language. There's probably much more in Arabic, Greek and Turkish. --Oakshade (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When the leader of a nation talks about reuniting his country with another, I believe that makes the relationship of those two countries quite notable indeed. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse me? All I can see in the "sources" is that Algeria supports Cypriot unification, which is hardly a controversial position - the UN Security Council has repeatedly asked for the same objective to be fulfilled. - Biruitorul Talk 05:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient sources exist to meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 15:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is good information that meets WP:N.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 16:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. Ikip (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep per above. Ikip (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sources cover individual events, not the topic as a whole, and show nothing of any significance on the world stage. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relationship that could significantly affect world prices for fossil fuels, is clearly notable. Dream Focus 03:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have done a rough expansion to include content from the sources that User:WilyD identified. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:12, 5 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Norway relations[edit]

Cyprus–Norway relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies. last agreement in 1963! [70] LibStar (talk) 05:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - utterly inane, not to say insane, pairing. Zero indication of notability, unsurprisingly. - Biruitorul Talk 05:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. The foreign relations here are not particularily strong, but after reading this page from the Norwegian embassy in Athens (this one handles the Cyprus relations as well), there does exist some potential to expand the article if needed. According to this (primary) source, Norway has given financial support to the UN force on Cyprus, and financial support for peace negotiations. On economics, tourism matters, as about 58 000 Norwegians visited the Island in 2007, and there are several Norwegian retirees who live in Cyprus during the winter. Fishing and shipping industry is also in place on Cyprus. Whether such relations are sufficient for notability is less clear. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for locating that page, but a) yes, it does fail the "Independent of the subject" requirement of WP:GNG; b) even so, to the extent Norway's involvement in Cyprus peacekeeping is notable, I wonder if we could cover it at UNFICYP. A lot of countries have even sent troops there, but if that's all there is to it, we may as well handle it there. Also, there's a Tourism in Cyprus article if the bit about tourists is important enough to mention there. - Biruitorul Talk 06:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. The countries should have some relations, but there's not enough discussion of them to pass WP:N. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also stale: the copying and pasting from one AfD to the next. Sorry, but editors should address each AfD individually; such general comments are best reserved for the workgroup. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is not required to craft a unique thousand word essay to explain that each similar robostub fails the same guidelines. Edison (talk) 04:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To clarify: if we limit ourselves to only creating articles for the relations between the 194 nations widely recognised as independent, we'll only have a very reasonable 18,721 entries. Once the list is complete, they wont be random pairings but a glorious , comprehensive compendium of information on this topic. An incomparable , valuable resource that will be of benefit to global trade, diplomacy and cultural exchange! FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since I see no evidence of notability. Drmies (talk) 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and clean up with more sources per Sjakkalle. Bearian (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please see WP:NOHARM for why that's an invalid argument. - Biruitorul Talk 01:17, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please see the top of that page: "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion." thanks for your opinion. Ikip (talk) 02:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Sources have been added showing Norways contributions to Cyprus,including significant efforts to reduce her bi - communal tensions. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • What relevance does the added trivia have? Is the notion of a notable relationship validated by any in-depth coverage of that relationship as such? - Biruitorul Talk 19:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The relationship is relevant to the highly noteable Turkish / Greek divide, as its led Norway to make efforts to intercede. And a multi million euro funding stream goes a long way in somewhere like Cyprus. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The relationship between any nation is notable, and if you checked for entries in the newspaper from those countries, you'd surely find plenty of mention. So far, the article list the financial connection Norway has with this small nation. That sounds like something noteworthy to me. ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not all bilateral relations are notable - let's get that straight. And please, asking editors to look at newspapers in Greek and Norwegian on the chance "there might be sources" is not very productive - it's "keep" voters who have the burden of demonstrating notability through sources they actually find. And the financial assistance, in isolation and out of context, counts as trivia. - Biruitorul Talk 05:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It proves that the country has a notable relationship, if one nation is giving money to another, that alone validating the existence of this article. Dream Focus 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, what we need is significant coverage of the relationship itself - not bits of news individual Wikipedians have inferred "prove" anything. - Biruitorul Talk 05:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - there is sufficient coverage in reliable sources. Smile a While (talk) 16:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Norway and Cyprus have two of the largest merchant fleets in Europe, making them competitors. Also, many Cypriot-registered ships are Norwegian owned. (Looked for, but couldn't find anything on Norse or Norwegian colonies or attacks on Cyprus.) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do you have a citation for "many Cypriot-registered ships are Norwegian owned". LibStar (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (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. BJTalk 00:26, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of Web-scraping software[edit]

Comparison of Web-scraping software (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unencyclopedic spam list of web software. Nakon 05:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, OR and spam magnet. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Deletion Tag, There are different comparison pages already on Wikipedia for eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_content_management_systems, as already mentioned during earlier discussions (ref.Talk) regarding deleting this page. So I think that this page does not warrant deletion. Also this page can accumulate more comparison information without doing any kind of damage and instead providing a good reference. (Webzie (talk) 06:22, 30 April 2009 (UTC))[reply]
— Webzie (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
The argument that other stuff exists is not a legitimate reason. Nakon 15:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists can be a legitimate reason if the other article is sufficiently similar and if extensive discussion deemed it worthy to include or even resulted in an GA or FA status for the article. I can't see that hear, though. - Mgm|(talk) 09:00, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I could be convinced to keep this if the notability of the individual components was proven, but without any reliable sources (the existing one doesn't coun't) it's nothing more than disguised advertising. - Mgm|(talk) 09:02, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Deletion Tag, I think an unbiased, centralised, list of different products with proper comparisons is a valuable resource. It would also help prevent the spread of product specific pages with marketing blurb instead of properly targeted requirement comparisions. --Marc350 (talk) 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • User's first edit. Nakon 22:30, 5 May 2009 (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.  Sandstein  06:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Antiviral Stockpile[edit]

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

Aside from the bad title, this article is trivia - it presents four meaningless, out-of-context numbers that, to the extent any of them is relevant, could easily be mentioned in one of our growing array of articles on swine flu (thank goodness Wikipedia wasn't around in 1918). Biruitorul Talk 05:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete 1) Article fails to state it's about antiflu medication 2) Numbers change too often while new stuff is bought and vaccins are given to make this accurate for any length of time, especially during an epidemic. 3) Merging with swine flu articles is a bad idea too because the antivirals countries have stocked up on now aren't aimed at swine flu in particular. If any coverage is to occur it should be in the article about the medicine itself. - Mgm|(talk) 11:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • "This article is currently lousy and difficult to maintain" is not an indication that the topic of the article is non-notable. AfD is about whether this topic should be included in the encyclopedia, not about whether or not the current incarnation of an article is any good. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As above Tresiden (talk) 19:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unverifiable. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Oseltamivir or other relevant page. (Please see updated view below.) Should Wikipedia have information about the practice of stockpiling drugs against pandemics? Yes. Is a country-by-country count of how many doses of a single drug are on hand what that article should contain? No. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How is that page relevant? The numbers don't even mention a specific brand of the medication and based on the sources, it includes several of them. - Mgm|(talk) 08:57, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You could pick a more generic page, such as Antiviral drug, but 'Tamiflu' seems to be a particularly common choice for "personal" stockpiles (which is discouraged, but happens), so it seems relevant to the concept of antiviral stockpiles. Again: AfD is about the topic of (in this case) stockpiles of antivirals, and not solely about the specific existing contents that happen to be on the existing page. "This article has surmountable problems" is not a valid reason for deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 2 May 2009 (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 to delete. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Iceland–Mexico relations[edit]

Iceland–Mexico relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

state visit doesn't make an article. non resident embassies. no real third party coverage either [71] LibStar (talk) 04:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relations between these two states are as worthy of an article as between any two states. I have no connection to Iceland or Mexico. Robert Brockway (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment several of these X-Y country relations have been deleted in last few weeks. LibStar (talk) 04:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to say why you think they're significant - have you found sources covering this relationship? - Biruitorul Talk 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no third-party sources treating this relationship are forthcoming. - Biruitorul Talk 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete enough with the X - Y relations cruft. JBsupreme (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in this case. A quick search in Spanish turned up:
    • Iceland-Mexico income tax treaty (2008) - [72] [73]
    • Mexico has an embassy in Denmark and a consulate in Iceland - [74]
    • Agreement on Agriculture between the governments of Mexico and Iceland (2001) - [75]
    • Speech by the President of Iceland in Mexico City (he talks about a lot of collaboration between the countries) - [76] (Spanish) (translation: [77])
    • Agreement between Mexico and Iceland for the promotion and mutual protection of investments (2005) - [78]
    • Geothermal energy agreement between Mexico and Iceland - [79]
    • Both countries are directly affected by the Gulf Stream which has a direct effect on the climate in Iceland - [80] (same link as the 4th item)

— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  23:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The Gulf Stream is not an action of the Mexican government, while numerous precedents have found the mere existence of an embassy (which is not even the case here - the embassy is in Denmark) not to constitute inherent notability. For the rest, I strongly suggest you familiarise yourself with WP:GNG, particularly the clause requiring sources "independent of the subject". These sources are not independent, they are primary, and thus you have failed to demonstrate notability. - Biruitorul Talk 01:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment how does having an embassy in a different country prove notable relations? If anything it proves non-notability. Most of these agreements are relatively minor and do not prove notable and significant diplomatic relations. Gulf stream argument is really scraping the barrel and can be covered in the Gulf Stream article. LibStar (talk) 23:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources found by LinguistAtLarge, my own usual standards. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The List of sovereign states shows there are 203, therefore (203*202)/2 (=20503) potential articles with the title "X-Y relations", counting "Y-X relations" with it. It looks like some users are going around, like Johnny Appleseed creating as many as possible, as stubs, in the hope others will add onto them. I support this activity, as those subjects are unlikely to be examined, in detail, in most articles on individual countries. The first two of the basic tenets (verifiability, notability, and reliable sources) are guaranteed by the subject, leaving only the last to be checked for any details added. -MBHiii (talk) 23:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per secondary coverage found by User:LinguistAtLarge. Relationship meets WP:N if people are writing about it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Strong Keep per sources found by User:LinguistAtLarge. Some have now been added to the article, the others are on the talk page awaiting review by a spanish speaker. Had these sources been availabe earlier the weather round here would be positively icelandic! FeydHuxtable (talk) 18:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - all sources found so far are either not independent of the subject, or are primary sources, or do not provide significant coverage of the subject. Seriously: does WP:GNG just get thrown out the window for this string of nonsense articles? - Biruitorul Talk 19:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, WP:GNG deserves our respect. I note it says Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive - which seems to imply the source doesnt have to be exclusively about the subject. I suggest the sources are supplying non trivial coverage of important aspects of the relationship ( I might have said that more confidently if my spannish was better.) I guess its partly a judgement call on what one considers trivial. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One of the sources is a speech - a primary source that can't be used to demonstrate anything. One mentions Iceland only in passing, and one tells us they signed an "income tax treaty", which, no matter how you spin it, is of no relevance. - Biruitorul Talk 18:44, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. This article has only been suffering because thus far it has been drawing on available English articles, and as others pointed out, those are lacking in quality. I did not know of the search done by LinguistAtLarge and thus did my own search in English to form my own opinions. I found a wealth of material available on this, but was unable to translate it. Most of the problems raised above would be solved if we could just find some Spanish-fluent editors to translate the real meat of the material. While I am aware that searches do not prove notability, this to me suggests that with time and willing Spanish-fluent editors, the article will improve. -moritheilTalk 01:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could we perhaps see at least a few links to that "wealth of material"? - Biruitorul Talk 01:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, first off, most of us (myself included) don't understand the actual agreement in its original language. Editors are still arguing above as to what it's about, yourself included. You claim that it's only about tax rates, but this has not been definitively substantiated; it's only true that the mention of it in a speech was summarized thus. As to the notability of the topic, This article discusses the importance of Iceland's foreign trade to the country, and you will note that Iceland has very few agreements with other countries listed in the WP article about the Economy_of_Iceland. Thus, the trade agreement with Mexico is important to Iceland. On the other side of things, this states that Mexico's foreign trade with Iceland is important to it. If it's important to Mexico, and important to Iceland, then it shouldn't be folded into either country's economy article and ought to have its own article. I'd love to send you links to Spanish-language things but A) you can do your own search; even a simple search on google yields 7 million results and B) I'd hate to pass myself off as some judge of what's worthy, as I can't read Spanish. It's enough for me to point out there is a vast amount of material on the topic, a fact which was corroborated by LinguistAtLarge above. Of course, if you can read Spanish, and wish to assert that nothing of quality on the topic exists in Spanish, feel free to tell us. Otherwise the argument for deletion is effectively saying that you cannot trust that it will get better, and that doesn't warrant deletion, as WP:Deadline. -moritheilTalk 01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first link only mentions Mexico once, and it is a thoroughly trivial mention at that. The second link is dead. I did some searches in Spanish: nothing independent; one source from the Mexican Embassy in Denmark which, revealingly, tells us that bilateral trade is under $5 million a year, which, to a Mexican economy of $1.5 trillion and even an Icelandic one of $12 billion, is peanuts. Still waiting on that "wealth of material". And again, all of LinguistAtLarge's sources are government documents or from government sites, thus failing WP:GNG's requirement of independent sources, and likely breaching WP:NOR if used without corroboration by secondary sources. - Biruitorul Talk 02:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't want to repeat myself, but I think you've failed to understand something. My first link is not primarily about Mexico; it is about Iceland, and yet it is an important piece of the puzzle. It establishes the importance of Iceland's trade with other countries. There are, as I pointed out, very few other countries that Iceland trades with, as listed in the WP article about the Economy_of_Iceland. The article establishes that its trade with these countries is important. I have never claimed that the article was primarily about Mexico; go back and read my argument if you like. As for the second link not working, I don't know what to say; I just searched again and downloaded that file successfully. Try again? Even if it doesn't work, try this, which talks about Iceland's investment in and trade with Mexico. These are all English documents, as I've said, and there are ~7 million more of them.
It is clear that you may have stricter standards than other editors as to what constitutes a relevant article, but even if you continue to find fault with one or another for various reasons, I find it statistically unlikely that they are all trivial or of no importance. There will only be more documents in Spanish, which is where I said the wealth of material was. However, since I don't claim to know it and you do, I will not attempt to overturn your arguments based on the Spanish-language searches you claim you did. I explicitly noted above that I would defer to expertise in Spanish, and I will. If you and the other Spanish speakers have examined the Spanish documents and agree that this international treaty is somehow insignificant or not noteworthy, I will agree that it should be moved rather than kept - though where to move it will then become a serious issue, as it will have to be mirrored in articles about Iceland and Mexico (as we have seen, it is economically significant in each place even if the treaty itself does not pass a literature test for being noteworthy). Editors will then have to go back and forth each time improvements are made to one version of the section, copying the edits to the other version.
Finally, I must raise an entirely different issue: you seem to be singlehandedly pushing for deletion and repeating the same arguments at different people with different reasons for voting to keep. Perhaps there is nothing automatically wrong with one person arguing passionately against the consensus of five others who vote to keep, but you are using a lot of references to WP principles, so is it fair of me to raise the issue of WP:CON? The two other votes for Delete are JBsupreme, whose rationale amounts to labeling it cruft and therefore automatically disliked without addressing the issues (see WP:CRUFTCRUFT), and Edison, who focuses on quality ("will become stale and outdated"), when WP:Deadline. -moritheilTalk 11:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • But you see, one mention of Mexico in a list of 50 countries does not constitute the "significant" coverage we require. I can now see the second link (as well as the third) and, yes, Iceland has an agricultural agreement with Mexico. And...? What precisely does that mean? Is it something we'd ever think of mentioning outside this series of nonsense articles? Is it something whose importance is validated in the context of a broader discussion of "Iceland-Mexico relations", or just something we should decide constitutes an important part of that, without secondary sources telling us? See also here - Mexico ranks 19th of Iceland's trade partners (1.7%) - perhaps not irrelevant, but (I would argue) something that, if indeed notable, could be mentioned at Economy of Iceland, especially as the relationship seems to have a mostly economic dimension.
    • I certainly consider some bilateral relations articles to be notable (Iceland-Denmark, Mexico-US, Russia-China, France-Spain, etc), but for me at least, notability is conferred by significant coverage of the relationship itself (which is, after all, what the title says the article is about), not of bits of information regarding any two countries in common. Something like this (not necessarily a book; journal or even newspaper articles can also provide significant coverage).
    • While there are some common threads in my arguments, I don't actually say the same thing over and over; I do consider each pair separately, as well as the sources presented. On rare occasions, I've even voted to keep some of these - I have a viewpoint, but I'm not dogmatic about it. And let's not forget, many of these do get deleted. So while we may continue to disagree here, I hope we do so respectful of each others' viewpoints, and not in acrimony. - Biruitorul Talk 15:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reading the article, I see many things that make this relationship notable enough to be mentioned in its own article. Please read through the article, before just deciding you don't like articles of this type, and trying to delete it. The content makes it notable, not the opinions of others. And unless you have done a proper search in the language of these two nations, for things mentioned in the newspapers of the countries involved, you aren't going to be finding a lot of third party media coverage. But surely such events would in fact be mentioned there. Does anyone doubt this? Is there any reasonable doubt at all that meetings and treaties between two nations, would be covered in major newspapers of those countries, thus satisfying the current notability guidelines? ♫♫♫♫♫ Dream Focus 01:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources are either not independent or trivial, and the burden of proof lies on those defending the article to submit evidence it's worth keeping. Calling on me to search in Spanish and Icelandic (!) isn't going to bolster the article's cause, and neither are fallacious questions about what might have appeared in the Mexican or Icelandic press at some time about some treaty. Unless those sources can actually be shown to exist, as opposed to saying they "must" exist, they're the sound of a tree falling in the forest. - Biruitorul Talk 02:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on non-trivial (not a "passing mention") sources supplied by LinguistAtLarge indicating easily passing WP:GNG.--Oakshade (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, GNG requires sources "independent of the subject", which speeches by Mexican officials are obviously not (in addition to being primary sources). Let's not pretend they are, or that they validate anything whatsoever. - Biruitorul Talk 03:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sufficient reliable sources to establish a significant relationship. Smile a While (talk) 16:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--esp. the tax information, uncovered by Linguist and added by Fred, convince me that this relationship is notable. In these kinds of cases, this kind of primary evidence should be sufficient--one cannot really expect these kinds of treaties being discussed independently, but that, in my opinion, does not take away from their notability and should satisfy GNG. Drmies (talk) 18:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's easy to see the way this is going, but let me just quote WP:PSTS: "any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". Any relevance to those treaties should be validated by secondary sources, and if it can't be, it shouldn't be in the article. Once that gets stripped away, we see how bare it really looks. - Biruitorul Talk 20:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep-- The information provided proves notability of this subject.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 18:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Delete Iceland's embassy for mexico is in... the United States. Mexico's embassy for Iceland is in... Denmark. No reliable sources indepdent of the subject discuss this relationship in any non-trivial depth. While the fact that weather in both countries is effected by the Gulf Stream is true, that says nothing about bilateral relations.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Negligible sources about individual events or treaties, not the topic as a whole. Poorly sourced at best as it stands. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep per LinguistAtLarge's research. Ikip (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per state visit. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, you must be joking. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (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) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cyprus–Uruguay relations[edit]

Cyprus–Uruguay relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

another laughable, random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident embassies, in fact 1 ambassador on a different continent. only 1 minor bilateral agreement of 22 years ago. [81] do these countries even trade? LibStar (talk) 04:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - Cyprus' Uruguay embassy is 6186 miles from Uruguay, which should tell us something. Zero indication there's any notability to this pairing. - Biruitorul Talk 05:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Closing administrator please note this editor has copy and pasted the exact same delete reason on Over forty other AfDs today. Two weeks ago he copy and pasted the same reason in 15 AfDs in less than 3 minutes. Ikip (talk) 09:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Delete No reliable sources exist about this relationship that would help this topic begin to approach, let alone pass, our general notability guidelines.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:02, 5 May 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

JBOF[edit]

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

Admitted neologism for a storage solution sold by Altaro. Article amounts to little more than a dictionary definition. A google search shows that this term is used by just one company - Altaro. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 03:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete WP:NEO Drawn Some (talk) 04:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:MORPHEUS JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:NEO. This term may eventually be appropriate for an encyclopedia, but it is not yet widely enough used or well enough defined. Shanata (talk) 08:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, neologism. Strip out all the promotional stuff, and all you're left with is a dicdef, anyway. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep"""* per user:IGTLW As Flash technology (not new by any strech of the imagination) has become more economical it use is starting to widen. JBOF is a natural evolution of JBOD, however what the article was trying to conveyt was NOT the dictionary definition of just a bunch of flash, but how JBOF is SSD deployed as a tier of storage in an ILM construct. This concept shows up in a number of vendors presentations w/o explicitly calling it JBOF, but that's what it is. (see http://chucksblog.emc.com/.a/6a00d83451be8f69e2011279483a2c28a4-popup). So the concept is valid and I doubt that Atrado was the first to use the term since I have heard it used at storage conferences over the past 3 years. EMC which prefers the term ESD (enterprise SSD) over ESD so they can lay claim to a proprietary word and ease any legal burdeons in their marketing collateral. It doesn't appear as though Atrato is trying to lay claim to owning the word JBOF rather they are just using it to convey an enhanced use case over the dictionary definition. Anyways my 2 cents worth for a 20+ year storage industry veteran. —Preceding undated comment added 18:22, 4 May 2009 (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Republic of China – Hungarian relations[edit]

Republic of China – Hungarian relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not only have these two not had relations for 60 years, there's also no indication relations were notable prior to 1949. The one salient fact, the switch in recognition, is noted here, here and here already. Biruitorul Talk 03:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete could find very little third party coverage of relationship, especially recently. only this from 2002 and 1999. LibStar (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As another one of these bondings between two random countries. However, I would advise waiting, as there's currently a discussion between bilateral relations; I recommend holding back until a decision is made. Cheers. I'mperator 18:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 17:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
  • Delete no reliable sources discuss this alleged relationship in its wikipedia article and none are findable by me. Fails V, N, etc...Bali ultimate (talk) 03:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to People's Republic of China – Hungary relations. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 11:28, 5 May 2009 (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 speedily deleted (G11) by Jayron32. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BareBabies[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable, couldn't find any news coverage focussing on the company, only mentioned as an aside a few times. Article is really just advertising for the company. Fences and windows (talk) 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete non-notable spam. I tagged it for speedy delete spam. Drawn Some (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 04:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devin Townsend demos[edit]

AfDs for this article:
    Official Bootleg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    Christeen plus 4 Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ass-Sordid Demos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Ass-Sordid Demos II (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    All four are non-notable demos with no independent coverage. —Gendralman (Talk) 02:22, 29 April 2009 (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 but preferably merge whenever a good target is decided upon. This is a notable example of an interesting topic, but it would be better placed and avoid redundancy in a larger article about the topic with a number of examples. Fram (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    had had had had had had had had had had had[edit]

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

    Individual "word puzzles" are generally not notable enough for their own articles, and this article does nothing to convince otherwise. The two online sources simply present the puzzle and the solution, and are not what are considered reliable sources anyway. The book cited is simply the book where the phrase originally appeared. The section on "extendability" (which I don't believe is an actual word at all) appears to be original research. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete it's an example of a concept that may or may not be notable. The example itself is not notable. Here are some others that need to be deleted: List of linguistic example sentences. Drawn Some (talk) 02:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Individual linguistic example sentences should not have their own articles. Note that it would take an unusually large number of redirects to enable any particular user to find this article -- not just because of doubt over the correct number of hads in the sentence, but also because any two names might happen to be substituted for James and John. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or cleanup I did find a couple of sources though a Google book search (link), none of them actually used the sentence in the exact same way that Wikipedia does. That, however, does not necessarily equate deletion if some sources can be found using different variations, etc. However, I don't logically see that happening. Tavix |  Talk  03:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment if you keep this one then get ready for "How much wood would a woodchuck chuck....." because it's redlinked. Drawn Some (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Merge It doesn't seem notable enough for it's own article, but perhaps it can be merged. Basket of Puppies 04:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or delete per above. JBsupreme (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I'm not sure what's wrong with those refs: I looked at the first one and it does show that the the phrase is popular. The inclusion criteria require coverage in multiple third-party sources and this is covered. If the unverified content is challengable, we should remove that content. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 07:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is with the title more than anything. Whilst the eleven "had"s in a row are universal, the things before and after them are not. (Alan Dundes has "John where James", for example.) Thus this title is not what readers will be looking up. However, that's solved by renaming the article (to take the extraneous non-universal material out). Zain Ebrahim111 is right that there are plenty of sources that cover this subject. They don't cover it in much depth, though. However, one, a paper by Jean Aitchison, shows that there's a wider subject here of repetition in linguistics, which can include this as well as sentences such as "The bus the car the tram hit hit hit the van.". We get from here to there in the fashion that Wikipedia:Notability and User:Uncle G/On notability prescribe for articles where the sources exist but they discuss the subject as but one thing in a wider context, by keeping, renaming to that self-same wider context, and expanding. Uncle G (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a particularly interesting word problem, although as Uncle G mentions, everything other than the "had"s is not universal. (The version I saw started "Tom, where Dick..." and ended "the examiner's approval". And it took me sixteen years to work it out. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • KeepInteresting PirateSmackK (talk) 11:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: Being interesting is not a reason to keep an article. Tavix |  Talk  02:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hey are you following me around? Let the closing administrator weigh the appropriateness of !votes - you don't have a valid reason to strike off my vote. Its my belief that if something is verifiable and interesting/bizarre then it should be included in an encyclopaedia, even if it lacks WP:RS to establish notability; WP:IAR should be applied in such cases. For me WP:V>WP:N. Ofcourse this is just my opinion, just as Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is someone's. I've unstricken my votePirateSmackK (talk) 09:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not following you around, you stumbled upon a discussion I am taking part in. While you might not believe in it, WP:ATA is an essay that has the viewpoint of the majority of wikipedians. The reason that "interesting" is not a strong vote is listed in the appropriate section and I strongly suggest you read it. WP:IAR does not apply here because ignoring that rule does not benefit the Wikipedia in this case. Tavix |  Talk  00:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You essay itself says why interesting can be a valid argument. Besides the article has reliable sources now. PirateSmackK (talk) 03:21, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 13:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Google turns up dozens of reliable sources to establish notability; I don't see how this is any less noteworthy than Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo, which is also prominent in the world of linguistics. In response to Chris G a few posts above: we have plenty of redirects, so I don't think the title is a problem. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - WP:OTHERSTUFF - The Buffalo example may in fact be non-notable, but it's not the subject here. Unless there has been consensus on specific notability guidelines for linguistic phrases, we need to go by the standard notability guidelines and I'm still not seeing it.DSZ (talk)
        • No, this has nothing to do with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I clearly said why I believed this particular topic is notable, and then compared it to another, similar subject. –Juliancolton | Talk 15:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - That it is interesting is not a reason to keep it, see WP:INTERESTING. At least two of the sources are simply using the word problem, not actually providing notable coverage *about* the problem. I'm sure a lot of elementary school math books contain the problem 5 times 6, but that doesn't make 5 times 6 notable on its face.DSZ (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Individual pieces of data, which is what linguistic examples sentences and puzzles are, are generally neither notable nor encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Cnilep (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ...but see below. Cnilep (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails WP:N. Edison (talk) 15:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to a subsection of Syntax called "repetition". Wikipedia needs this content, or at least a description of this phenomenon, but this article title does not strike me as encyclopaedic. Redirect after merging if this is felt important.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Syntax per Marshall. Definitely has some germane information that could be used... I'm not sure about a redirect, as it's not that common a search term :/ Cheers. I'mperator 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • In a change to my previous suggestion, I now think the merge target should be Garden path sentence for reasons that, I hope, will be quite apparent to editors who examine that article.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 19:26, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not convinced, for the simple reason that this isn't a garden path sentence. There's no ambiguity that causes parsing distress, nor is there a reduced relative clause — a common feature of garden path sentences. This sentence is an example of how punctuation aids parsing, performing the task that would in spoken language be performed by stress, intonation, and pausing. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Would you be happier with a merge to a new section of Syntax or Punctuation?

            My position is similar to the one I've taken in the Biblical Definition of God AfD, i.e. that (1) this content belongs on Wikipedia, but (2) it doesn't belong in an article with this title.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 21:58, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • I'm undecided. It's difficult to pick out the subject as sources address it. Have a look at the Jean Aitchison source, and see what you think. It's this:
              • Jean Aitchison (1994). ""Say, Say it Again Sam": The Treatment of Repetition in Linguistics". In Andreas Fischer (ed.). Repetition: Selection of papers given at a symposium held in Zurich in 1993. Gunter Narr Verlag. p. 26. ISBN 3823346822 ISBN 9783823346821.
            • There are others. See these, for examples:
              • Grover Hudson (1999). "The Ecology of Writing". Essential introductory linguistics. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 372. ISBN 9780631203049.
              • Auriel Douglas and Michael Strumpf (1988). Webster's New World guide to punctuation. Webster's New World. p. 4. ISBN 9780139478963.
              • John McDermott (1990). Punctuation for now. Macmillan. p. 4. ISBN 9780333510674.
            • This is far from being the same, by a long chalk, as the biblical definition of God. That is a subject, addressed directly as one in sources. This is one example of a subject, used as an example in sources, and is best refactored into that subject, once we have teased out of the sources what that subject properly is. Aitchison is a strong pointer that this subject is repetition, although there are others that treat this primarily as a punctuation issue. As I said, read it yourself, and see what you think. Perhaps we need a separate article on various aspects of repetition with a discussion in punctuation that links to it. Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I didn't say it was the same. I said my position is similar.  :)

                I turned to my trusty Fowler's (ISBN 0-19-869126-2; I have the 1996 edition) and found a substantial treatment of the phenomenon under "repetition". Arguably, this could go an article called Repetition (syntax).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

                • That's interesting. I have the 1958 re-print, untouched by Gowers or Burchfield, and its entry doesn't mention this sort of thing at all. I'll have to see whether I can lay my hands upon one of the revised editions. This is apparently one of the things that was revised. ☺ I've quickly checked several others, including Follett, Horwill, Gowers' Plain Words, and Patridge's Usage and Abusage, and they don't have this under repetition. Am I to take it that since coming across this source you are happier with repetition? ☺ Uncle G (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Much.  :) As far as I'm concerned, if Fowler's calls it "repetition" then "repetition" is its name.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge and redirect per S Marshall, given that (as Uncle G suggested above) the problem here is the title of the present article, as well as the different 'forms' the conundrum may appear in. The garden path strikes me as the right route to take. Drmies (talk) 20:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I hope that we don't find ourselves going up the garden path. ☺ There's definitely an overarching subject here. But teasing it out of sources and identifying it is tricky. This sentence exemplifies how punctuation aids parsing. And there are several widely known ones like it. "There should be hyphens between fish and and and and and chips." is another. These aren't "garden-path" sentences, strictly speaking. Uncle G (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Uncle G, you are right, as so often. I'll have another look at the sources provided. Drmies (talk) 16:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not meet inclusion guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Does not seem to meet notability as it seems simply to be a teaching aid. Ironically, I was just reading WP:DAFT. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Delete G3 and WP:MADEUP. The Junk Police (reports|works) 02:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Neither G3 nor WP:MADEUP applies here. This was the first sentence of the "repeating word" genre I ever encountered, when I was a little kid over 30 years ago. I'm undecided as to whether there should be an article on it, but the sentence is a well-known example of the type. Perhaps we should have a general article on Repeating word sentences (or some other name) to which this and the "Buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" and the "fish and and and and and chips" should be merged. —Angr 05:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Have a look at the sources cited above. What do you think? Repetition, punctuation, or syntax? Uncle G (talk) 11:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You don't know how much I had wish it had.  ;) JBsupreme (talk) 05:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or merge to something like Repetition in linguistics - I just added nine reliable sources and expanded the article a bit. Some of the references use the sentence instead of discussing the sentence (and are included in the article to show various ways the sentence is used), but overall, I think notability is established. If you want more, try looking through the 99 Gbooks hits for "Had had had had had had had had had had had". I am very much in agreement with Uncle G's comment above that this is part of a wider subject of Repetition in linguistics, and would be equally satisfied if this is merged to an article like that. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  06:32, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I usually agree with Linguist, but in this case I feel that Repetition in linguistics wouldn't represent the article's content as clearly as Repetition (syntax). Do I need to explain why?—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:31, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • In my opinion, Repetition in linguistics, Repetition (syntax), Syntactic ambiguity, Ambiguity (syntax), Parsing (syntax), etc could all work as merge targets. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  18:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • For what it's worth, I simply took repetition in linguistics from Aitchison, as cited above. But now we have a second source, found by S Marshall. I'm quite curious as to what it says, now. Uncle G (talk) 19:12, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm going to to with Repetition (syntax), with deference to Marshall--and because I think syntactical issues come "before" punctuation issues. (I just ordered a copy of Fowler, 2003 edition.) But I'll settle for whatever the linguistic minds here come up with--it seems to me that they have the bookshelves to back up their argument. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • I can't summarise it usefully for you, Uncle G, because it's about three columns of text that's already expressed with Fowleresque concision, but I can describe it. It starts off by examining "had had", then "do do" ("the way in which we do do such things"), then "her her" ("she brings with her her daughter"), then "that that" ("not that that would bother most people nowadays"), then "was was", "it it", and then multiple "that"s (getting up to four). Then it goes on for nearly an entire column on the case "is is", mentioning a phenomenon called "pleonastic doubling". Then it spends another most of a column talking about doubled phrases rather than doubled words.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 22:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The article is now not much more than the problem and the solution, so even if it is deleted, I don't think it would be much trouble to add it into this hypothetical new article (once ya'll have agreed what that article will be called). If the plan is to move the whole batch of articles on these things into one article covering the general concept and using a few specific examples, I have no objection to that. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I am not retracting my delete suggestion, above, but I am not opposed to a merge into some sort of "repetition" page, as described by S Marshall, Uncle G, LinguistAtLarge et alia. Cnilep (talk) 13:55, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, it will be no trouble to recreate this until a more suitable title. Wuzzit (talk) 19:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep for now, with the intention of merging. It does appear a little excessive to try and spin this out into a full article; but it's certainly a frequently-referenced grammatical curiosity and the content could easily be incorporated into another article on the subject - reliable sources also appear to have been found to support it. ~ mazca t|c 11:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Guys, this is ridiculous. When I originally started this article almost two years ago I had to fight to keep it from Speedy Deletion. Look at it's History page. Look how active it is. The only reason you all are arguing over it now is because it's become so frequently accessed and has been expanded so much. This is a model for what Wikipedia is about. I don't pretend to be an expert on the Wikipedia bylaws, but I know Wikipedia is about compiling knowledge and bringing people together in the sharing of that knowledge. That is exactly what this does. I saw this sentence on the page "List of example sentences" and my roommate and I couldn't figure it out. We did some research, figured it out, and I added the page as a means for other people to understand this linguistic oddity, without the hassle my friend and I went through to figure it out. People enjoy this article, and people are learning from it. To delete this is to subjugate Wikipedia to the type of bureaucracy that kills free thought and fails to recognize quality because it is so restrained by the technicalities of its own operation. Read the article and take from it what I intended: something worth understanding. Please do not delete this. If you really feel the need to create a new article, with a new title, by all means do so. But allow this information to be accessed, and specifically linked to from the list of example sentences page and Buffalo Buffalo Buffalo. That is what it was for. Thanks. -Timt1006 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timt1006 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If similar sentences, including the malo and buffalo sentences, are considered notable, why not this one? I do think that it is notable enough - see the references. darkweasel94 (talk) 15:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The subject is a valid encyclopedic topic and sources are available, merging and changing the title should be discuss in the talk page of the article not here. --Jmundo 02:32, 7 May 2009 (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. The decision of whether to create redirects, and if so where they should lead, is best left up to interested editors. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 18:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Billy Deep[edit]

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

    Non-notable fictional character Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

    Sheena Deep (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Carly Beth Caldwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    Matt Daniels (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
    • Delete or merge all of them and redirect to the book. None are notable. Consider page protection of the redirects. Drawn Some (talk) 02:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect all back to the book, as the most important information from the actual pages are already in the book (Characters section, I presume). Cheers, I'mperator 18:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the book, most of the information is already there. Tresiden (talk) 19:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to the book. Edward321 (talk) 23:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: While I agree that a redirect is a possibility, these characters all appear in 2 or 3 books of the same series. Which book should a redirect point to? (Also, none of the books' articles have "characters" sections, and the larger pages for the series have "Very Special Guests" and "Popular Books and Characters" respectively...but that's a lesser issue). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all Billy Deep and Matt Daniels are common names and most likely have another more notable subject that requires the location. The others can easily be found in a search without actually needing a redirect if they're already mentioned in the book articles. - Mgm|(talk) 10:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all or redirect to appropriate disambiguation page, per Mgm. These names are too common to be made into simple redirects a for a single work. Google Matt Daniels shows there are indeed many possible notable real people with this name - redirects will discourage article creation.YobMod 10:05, 7 May 2009 (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) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophical theory[edit]

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

    The article is unsourced, and appears to be original research (WP:OR) - the author explains on the talk page that he "created this page and the category with the prima facie understanding of 'philosophical theory', i.e. theories about ideas, contrasted with scientific theories about observable data." In other words, he constructed the definition himself from the context in which the phrase is used.

    The article title also appears to be a neologism WP:NEO, as a definition for it does not appear in any of the following publications:

    I also looked up "Theory" in the above publications. Where it appeared at all, it referred to "Scientific theory" and not to the context presented in this article.

    While "philosophical theory" is used all over the place on the Web, the two words appear to be paired colloquially to describe a wide range of things (ideas or views that happen to be philosophical in nature), rather than refer to a formal classification within the field of philosophy.

    WP:NEO states: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."

    The Transhumanist 01:53, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep. Sure, it is a crappy article, but how can you say it is a neologism or non-notable if there is an entire category "Philosophical theories" with dozens of articles in it? I feel like I'm missing something of the nominator's thought process. Drawn Some (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. The difference between Philosophical theory and the category Philosophical theories, is that the category is theories that are philosophical in nature, which is not necessarily the topic of the article. In fact, the types of philosophical theories stated in this article page (life stance, religion, worldview, and ideology) are generally not related topics in the category Philosophical theories. In my studies of philosophy and science I've never come across the term philosophical theories. Also, as discussed on the talk page, the term philosophical theories is probably not the most common name for the material described in the brief article. At this time, I cannot suggest a better name for the article and I don't think that the article is sufficiently notable to be kept. Shanata (talk) 08:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. If we have Category:Philosophical theories, the category ought to have a head article, even if the head article is little more than a disambiguation page. I would approach the subject a bit differently - relating it to the head article on theory itself, and note that philosophical theories are complexes of shared beliefs and assumptions that are basic to various philosophical schools. Note that Google Scholar yields more than 10,000 hits for both "philosophical theory" and "philosophical theories". - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete/Redirect Keep In it's unsourced state, it's presumed the author created this definition him or herself. Therefore it is by definition original research. Redirect the phrase to Category:Philosophical theories. If someone can conclusively cite that there is one definition of this two-word phrase, based on scholarly work on the subject, that would be a different story. Google hits and random uses of the phrase do not make something notable or concrete. -Markeer 20:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Changed to Keep based on significant improvement to the article, most particularly involving sourcing. The language currently being used seems to express the general, and difficult to exactly define, nature of the term while sourcing those definition statements. This seems like a good example of what should happen out of an AfD...a spur to greater quality of a wikipedia article.-Markeer 23:15, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep -- Transhumanist. I really wish we could have the discussion about what I meant about "consistent" before we get into proposing to delete articles like this one. Has anyone given any thought to the greater organizational picture here? I am open minded that we may very well delete this "philosophical theory" article at some point. However I am unclear on what the consensus is to deal with the category and the glossary and the list, as well as the organization of the "theories" category, etcetera. I had proposed to move category philosophical theories to "non-empirical theories", but there was no consensus to do that. I am a little baffled at the need to delete this in the absence of this dicussion.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 20:50, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Well, I can't speak for Transhumanist, but to your question, I would imagine that if there is some problem with Category:Philosophical theories or Category:Theories it could be brought up on the discussion pages for those categories. This is a discussion about this one article only. From a personal perspective, I see a difference between a category about philosophical theories and an article trying to define the exact term "philosophical theory". Regardless, my suggestion to delete above is related to lack of sourcing, and until that's addressed I'm not particularly interested in other issues (although those could become important if the sourcing problem could be resolved). -Markeer 21:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I added a reference and clarified the matter I hope. There still needs to be a broader discussion, and I hope you get involved there too. Be well Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, might not a philosophical theory be any that springs from, or contributes to, the love of knowledge? I think this article does, too, in its small way. -MBHiii (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • LeaningStrong keep I don't believe this to be a neologism because it hasn't been recently coined. This phrase has turned up in numerous sources through searches on google books and google scholar. All that this needs for a proper article is a definition from a reliable source. Oddly enough, I haven't found a straight-forward definition of the term, perhaps because the meaning is implied by common sense. I can't imagine that this phrase hasn't been elucidated anywhere; I'll look it up in the library when I visit in around 12 hours. ThemFromSpace 07:12, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I thought is was common sense as well. However "common sense" is also a philosophical theory.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 21:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I added some more sources and examples to the work already done on this by Gregbard and Ihcoyc. The term was discussed in several books that I found and I tried to cite the relevant material into this article. There's not a doubt in my mind that this shouldn't be in here. It now meets WP:V which clears up the original research problem, and the topic has been discussed enough to make it notable enough for inclusion. ThemFromSpace 20:44, 1 May 2009 (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 userfy to User:Renaissancee/Sailing and Fighting Instructions for the time being. If it is properly rewritten, it may be moved back. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:00, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Sailing and Fighting Instructions[edit]

    Sailing and Fighting Instructions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    This was tagged as a disambiguation, but I don't see this as disambiguating anything. The only thing I see here is a long list of non-notable instructions issued by random people in the 1700s. The instructions are also completely unsourced as why these instruction should be included while others are not. Also, the disambiguation fails for the most part MOS:DABRL as a disambiguation should point to other articles, not a random assortment of redlinks. Tavix |  Talk  01:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Weak keep but not as a dab, at least at this point; make it a single article onthe subject's title ([82], [83]). JJL (talk) 01:39, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 01:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per JJL. Also de-redlink the list unless you want to eventually nominate each one for deletion. The author should be cautioned not to create separate articles unless there is enough verifiable material to warrant one, a few may qualify. Also consider moving to "List of Sailing and Fighting Instructions" or similar. Drawn Some (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep at least as a list. Probably an article can be written about each, but I'm not going to do it. If by any chance they are in WikiSource, add links. if not, they'd be appropriate. DGG (talk) 03:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete huge list of red links? Why? JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy to a subpage for the originating author (User:Renaissancee) for the time being. The nominator is right that this doesn't appear to have anything to disambiguate at the present. It seems instead to be a to-do list for a fairly substantial project involving any number of historic naval general orders. As a list of proposed articles, it probably ought to be at a user page for the time being. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per, err, incomprehensible and useless.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Wikipedia is not for miscellaneous collections of information. The inclusion criteria are vague. If all such instructions from ancient times to the present were included, it would still be a collection of redlinks to primary sources. OK to userfy and for the creator of the list to figure out what article he wants to create. I fear the intent is to create articles for each set of signals, and those might not meet our criteria for notability. Oerhaps Wikisource is the proper place for a mass of primary sources. Meanwhile, "Don't give up the ship, damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead, don't shoot until you see the whites of their eyes, ride to the sound of the cannons, and git thar fustest with the mostest!" Edison (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. The suitability of any one given set of these orders for its own article is yet to be seen. The article already suggests that some of them were issued by notable commanders, and a few of them may have had some impact in battles. Since the title seems to be standard, at least as regards the Royal Navy, there probably ought to be a general article describing their contents. I found at least one sample online. We also have an interesting but under-referenced article on Naval tactics in the Age of Sail that seems relevant. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:47, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Do we really need another list of red links? Tresiden (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All sources were gathered from Naval Warfare In the Age of Sail: The Evolution of Fighting Tactics 1650-1815 by Brian Tunstall and edited by Dr. Nicholas Tracy. The reason I haven't updated it recently is life has been a little hectic, and I assume no users really want to contribute to famous naval battle orders. All articles are meticulously recorded and noted in the book, as well as multiple effects to where it took place and what else used it's information. But yes, I believe a few of them could go. I'll have to weed out the weak ones first. Renaissancee (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Encyclopedic information. Notable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you prove it? All I'm seeing a long list of unreferenced redlinks. Please enlighten me on how you came to this conclusion... Tavix |  Talk  02:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Very strange series of dead links, serves no useful encyclopedic purpose. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 12:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Userfy Allowing the benefit of the doubt that at least some of these are notable, it seems the information would be better presented as a table or a detailed list, not in the format of a disambiguation page consisting entirely of redlinks. I'd vote to delete if the creator weren't here and expressing the intention to improve the page; since he is, I have no opposition to him working on the page further, but it doesn't seem ready for prime-time in its current state. Propaniac (talk) 21:16, 2 May 2009 (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. sources presented, but no discussion on whether these meet the criteria for GNG, so erring on side of caution. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Human Givens[edit]

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

    Only two 3rd party sources. Heavily edited by single-purpose accounts. Does not pass WP:N as the only published research seems to be from Human Givens Publishing. Wperdue (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply I think my browser screwed the pooch on that one. How can I fix this? Thanks.
    I've tagged the article. Deor (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help. Wperdue (talk) 03:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    Always glad to help a former Chicago Bull. :-) Deor (talk) 05:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 (talk) 11:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment The first two sources mentioned are the same self-published sources that already make up the majority of the current entry. The Nursing Times source mentions Human Givens only once in the reference section with no indication as to how much of the information for that article is sourced from said reference. Finally, the BMJ article mentions several approaches including Human Givens which it called the "new kid" and implies that it is still largely unresearched. Wperdue (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    Comment Thank you Wperdue for looking at those. I confess I don't see how the New Scientist/Washington Post articles are self published - is it because they have been re-presented on the human givens site? Maybe worth mentioning that The Human Givens journal apparently has a editorial board including Dr Jeffrey Zeig, Prof Arthur Deikman and Dr Aric Sigman and is peer reviewed in this manner. Familiarising myself with Wikipedia rules I see that Human Givens approach most likely constitutes Original Thought and therefore the deletion request is reasonable. Perhaps the approach can be added at a later date when there is more research supporting the application of its theoretical basis. Thanks everyone for bearing with me! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.194.94.89 (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply That is correct. Usually, a source from a website, book, magazine, etc. that is published by or more than tangentially associated with the subject is considered a self-published source. This doesn't mean that it can't be used, but shouldn't be relied upon to reference the majority of information in an entry. Reliable secondary sources that provide non-trivial coverage and verifiability should be available if this approach has been widely accepted or researched. If and when that happens, I have no objections to it being written about on Wikipedia. I just feel that it has not at this time. If you have any questions about any of this, or more general questions, please feel free to leave me a message and I will do my best to answer your questions or point you to a more experienced editor who can. Wperdue (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
    • Keep We have the link to a respectable university and also there was an article in New Scientist on this which is where I learned of it's existence. Either of those is enough to establish notability. Man with two legs (talk) 05:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm surprised to see reliable sources, but NS,[84] Washington Times,[85] and BMJ Careers tick the boxes. Note that the interviews were not self-published, and I've found links to the original sources. Also see [86][87][88][89][90][91]. Fences and windows (talk) 01:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Even if the sources are just regurgitating the creators views, they still show that the concept is notable, per User:Fences and windows.YobMod 10:04, 7 May 2009 (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) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Estonia–Pakistan relations[edit]

    Estonia–Pakistan relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    another laughable random combination from the obsessive creator. non resident ambassadors. the Estonian govt notes: "In 2007, Pakistan was Estonia’s 72nd largest export partner, while imports from Pakistan to Estonia ranked it as Estonia’s 44th largest import partner." "Estonia has made no investments in Pakistan." http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/5431.html LibStar (talk) 01:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Libstar, you can't have it both ways, you can't ignore the embassy in one AFD, then cite no embassies as a reason for deleting in another AfD. Ikip (talk) 02:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete A Google news search doesn't turn up much [92] and [93]. Mandsford (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete for the usual reasons: non-notable intersection of countries. JJL (talk) 01:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no embassies, no strategic ties, no sources. Even the Estonians admit: "No agreements have been signed between Estonia and Pakistan... Economic relations between the two countries have remained modest". - Biruitorul Talk 03:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
    • weak delete unless sources are provided, nominator makes a good argument. Ikip (talk) 02:21, 5 May 2009 (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) 01:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Richard Moss[edit]

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

    non-notable new age writer, referenced only to his own website. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 29 April 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Summer Schoolgirls[edit]

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

    Non-notable game. Remurmur (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tammy Parks[edit]

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

    Non-notable pornographic (softcore) actress. See WP:PORNBIO. Can not verify her notability with reliable secondary sources. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted by Orangemike under WP:CSD#G4. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 03:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Mason Vale Cotton[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
    Mason Vale Cotton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    He's seven. A bit part in Desperate Housewives and bit-parts in other drama series does not make him notable. Ironholds (talk) 01:00, 29 April 2009 (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) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Stalwart Women[edit]

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

    Contested prod. Article is for one of several regional interest books that share this title. No indication the independent sources required to establish notability exist. Instead a search engine test shows all off-wiki references to the book are from online book vendors, library catalogs, or similar venues. Allen3 talk 18:10, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:10, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Alcha Gulu[edit]

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

    A dance created by a non-notable bloke. The only references I can find are mirrors of WP and mirrors of the site that this thing references, namely a blog. Ironholds (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Non-notable, googling the name of the creator of the dance produces no results. Delete CanadianNine 22:11, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article fails to pass verifiability due to one source and it composing of a blog, which is in Arabic. Above stated, there is no other supporting claims found by Google that this dance existed, or any of this information is creditable. Renaissancee (talk) 01:31, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Verifiability is likely going to be unobtainable even using Arabic sources. Drawn Some (talk) 14:18, 29 April 2009 (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) 01:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hungary–Laos relations[edit]

    Hungary–Laos relations (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    another random combination. non resident embassies. google news doesn't reveal much about relations either [98] LibStar (talk) 00:30, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete per nom as there is nothing unique about their relational status. There is one funny sentence in the article: "Both countries far from each other." Tavix |  Talk  00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete particularly non-notable intersection; article even seems to be poking fun at itself. JJL (talk) 01:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no sources to indicate any notability. Both countries were Communist in 1975-89, but in the absence of any documentation of there having been notable relations even then, deletion is the answer. - Biruitorul Talk 03:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails notability and not a directory or random collection of information. Better to have 200 sections or articles on "Foreign relations of ..." for each sovereign nation than about 20,000 random pairings which merely regurgitate information from the websites of the foreign ministries, and which will quickly become stale and outdated.Edison (talk) 15:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[99][100][101][102][103][104][105] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment If the articles fail to satisfy the same guidelines, and if any useful info would be most encyclopedically presented in 200 articles rather than 20,000, then what is wrong with repeating the argument? How much rewriting and variation of phraseology is required to satisfy Ikip or the WP:ELEGANTVARIATION guideline I have not been able to find? Edison (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom, Tavix, my usual standards. Bearian (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: This debate has been included on the  and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
    • Delete no reliable sources that discuss a subject? Then no encyclopedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was redirect to Hamazkayin. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Megerdich Megerdichian[edit]

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

    I had originally redirected this, but the redirect was undone. Fails WP:Biography, as he is not really notable outside of the company he is on the board of. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:13, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Redirect. CEOs with no demonstration of outside notability generally redirect to the article on their company. Protect if necessary. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Silver (dance music)[edit]

    Silver (dance music) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Entirely non-notable artist. No sources. Googling for the artist's name "Mario Jannelli" brings back nothing relevant, useful, and reliable. Not even a professional musician (article says he is "currently employed in the telecommunications industry") and the article was obviously originally created as vanity by User:M jannelli. Wickethewok (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Cirt (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no creditable or reliable sources, and large amounts of biographical information not suitable for an encyclopedia article. Renaissancee (talk) 00:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable and no claim of significance or importance. Independent references not available. Drawn Some (talk) 00:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was speedy deleted by Dank55 under WP:CSD#A7. Non-admin closure. BryanG (talk) 05:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lee Hyo Jin[edit]

    Lee Hyo Jin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

    Declined a speedy on this and am taking to AfD because language and transcription issues here can play havoc with finding sources. Gsearch isn't showing notability outside of her husband, Kang Ho Dong. Delete? Redirect? Exand with refs? I've really no idea. Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was redirect to NARCh. –Juliancolton | Talk 01:02, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Tour Mudcats[edit]

    AfDs for this article:
      Tour Mudcats (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contains unreliable/no sources. Players on team appear to be nothing more than locals who do not get paid. keystoneridin! (talk) 20:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:14, 29 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Melitina Staniouta[edit]

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

      I was unable to reference to three silver medal wins in the infobox. Without those there's insufficient content and indication of notability to have an article. I'm not nominating for speedy in case I missed a useful source in a foreign language I can't read. - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete - I eventually managed to find some tables listing her name and as having been in second place, but it appears from this site that the Junior competition does not have an official individual ranking, only team rankings. (So she didn't actually get a medal, as the web page implies) I found one source on Google News for her, this one (It's in Spanish) but it just reports the unofficial individual rankings in a table and doesn't mention her specifically so it looks like she's not had any press coverage. ~Excesses~ (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Fails WP:ATHLETE. لennavecia 03:49, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete unless article is expanded and sourced. Since she did not medal, she fails WP:ATHLETE. Enigmamsg 05:34, 3 May 2009 (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 all to appropriate sections of Roxette.-- Aervanath (talk) 22:10, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Crash! Boom! Bang! World Tour 1994/95[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Crash! Boom! Bang! World Tour 1994/95 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable Roxette tours that consist mainly of an indiscriminate list of tour dates and/or a setlist. Totally fails to satisfy the general notability guideline with significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. The only source is Roxette's own webpage of tour info, which maybe OK for the fans, but not for Wikipedia.

      I am also nominating the following related pages:

      The Summer Joyride '92! European Tour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
      Join The Joyride! World Tour 1991/92 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

      For those of you not smelling of socks, you may want to drop by here too; WP:AfD/Room Service Tour (2nd nomination).  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 11:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as a list of non-encyclopedic tour dates. Tavix |  Talk  00:24, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - Roxette were huge in Europe in the mid-90s (lots Top10 hits in about every European country and selling more than 70 million singles and albums), so I doubt all of their tours at the time of their peak (Joyride and Crash! Boom! Bang!) are non-notable fancruft. There certainly was tons of coverage in mags like BRAVO. I propose Roxette tours or something similiar. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord2 18:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Merge to a new Roxette tours article. Agreed they were hugely popular, so if there are not enough sources for individual notibility, there should be in aggregate.YobMod 10:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment (leaning on delete) Most likely anything worth keeping is already at the main article - Roxette#Joyride_(1990-1992) and Roxette#Crash! Boom! Bang! (1993-1995) - I guess only the references are worth keeping and I have added them to the main artcle - Nabla (talk) 19:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete for lack of reliable third-party sources, and general lack of notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to the appropriate sections (pointed out above) in the main Roxette article. yandman 10:12, 8 May 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Almira Hershey[edit]

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

      Cannot find significant third-party sources through Google; the information cannot be verified. Antivenin 14:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. Not enough creditable information for an article to be created. Renaissancee (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete or possible merge with Hollywood Hotel but frankly I am confused as to whether or not it is the right Hershey. The "Hotel Hollywood" was also known as the "Hollywood Hotel". At any rate the hotel(s) are notable, not her. Drawn Some (talk) 00:39, 29 April 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Easton stealth speed[edit]

      Easton stealth speed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Nonnotable product; one model of baseball bat. Author removed prod tag with no explanation. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete, does not explain why this one model of baseball bat should be any more special than the others. Just full of technical details. JIP | Talk 17:48, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete non-notable spam. No independent references for notability or verifiability. No verifiability, no Wikipedia article. Drawn Some (talk) 00:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - The product appears to have only recent been sold and I can find no coverage bout it in any reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 18:15, 30 April 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Mort O'Shea[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Mort O'Shea (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      non-notable Tad Lincoln (talk) 18:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 29 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Star Wars Chocolate Mpire[edit]

      Star Wars Chocolate Mpire (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Contested prod. Response to call for third-party sources yielded a toy-collector's fan site and a press release -- neither of them a reliable, third-party source to establish the product's notability --EEMIV (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, needs citations, but googling "mpire m&m" yields over 400,000 hits. Google is my Emperor Palpatine on this one. Tempshill (talk) 00:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete google is not enough, we need non-trivial third party publications documenting this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Or possible redirect to Hasbro and mention there. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete, all ghits show is that it's on the internet, not that there is reliable, significant coverage of this product in indepdenent sources. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to Abnormally_Attracted_to_Sin#Track_listing. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Welcome To England[edit]

      Welcome To England (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Article makes no attempt to establish the notability of its subject. While it may be notable in the future, articles should not be created based on speculation that this may happen, even if the song is by a well-known artist. KhalfaniKhaldun 19:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 29 April 2009 (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 MOOT, overtaken by events. Be careful merging an article that may be deleted because of GFDL issues, but it looks like consensus was running merge anyway. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Nnooo[edit]

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

      Fails WP:CORP and WP:N. No significant coverage in secondary, reliable sources. Only trivial coverage in the form of name being noted in articles about the game Pop (which isn't all that notable either and its initial article was clearly created by Nnooo). Failed PROD with prod removed by article creator, User:Unoispam, who appears to be affiliated with said company. Also failed CSD as not clearly spam (though some sentences appear to have been lifted directly from the ELs listed). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Present. Bad behavior by the article creator isn't helping. Being the creator of a launch title on WiiWare tends to say 'notable' to me. Tempshill (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Can you find a source that backs up it being a launch title? The one in the Pop article is a 404 link...and the few press releases I saw even mentioning the company's name say nothing about it beyond "made Pop"? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to mention that the point brought up by Collectonian is invalid as it is not a requirement that a company is to create two or more products to be deleted, which seems to be his sole argument. I would also like to make it known to both of the users above that I am not affiliated with this company in any for or way, nor is it possible or likely that I will be in the future. The article provides clearly relevant and factual information and while the article is slanted, it can be improved if correctly edited. The company is also creating new products and it is obvious that if not now, a page on Nnooo will be needed in the future. If created now, less information will have to be gathered in the future as the majority of it is already in place. Unoispam (talk) 00:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • My point is not invalid. There is no "likely" notability from it having a large stable of games produced. And as there is no significant coverage of the company itself, where is its actual notability? If you are not affiliated with the company, how do you know what it is currently doing? And please point to actual significant coverage in reliable sources showing it is notable. It has released one game and the company itself has not received significant coverage because of it. It has done nothing else yet. Per WP:CRYSTAL, future potential notability is not a valid reason to keep. For all anyone knows, it will go bankrupt before every releasing another game. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • The reason I know what it is currently doing is solely based on my own research. This site: http://www.massively.com/2008/05/20/nnooo-com-pitches-pokemon-mmo-own-name-gives-the-answer/ Is one of the many which has made it clear to me that the company is at least considering making new products. This also directly disproves the theory that it will go bankrupt before releasing a new game, as it already has asked permission from Nintendo to make several. There isn't "future potential", but a direct proof that this company IS expanding and will be well known in the future.

            I apologise sincerely if any of my actions have been considered "Bad behaviour". It is quite apparant that I am a new user to Wikipedia and I am still unsure of how to contest a deletion page. Reading the notice, it said a contest was allowed if I was to remove it and write my reasons in the talk page, which is what I did. Futuremore, it is clearly mentioned that the program is not solely for WiiWare, but for a variety of different consoles. The large popularity of this program is quite apparant and the company IS expanding, which is the reason I feel the article should stand.

            Unoispam (talk) 00:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

            • Asking for permission to make something and an intent to expand doesn't get the article around WP:CRYSTAL. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 05:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- Jmundo 02:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Passes GNG. See this article from Eurogamer, this interview (Google Translation link) from Paulínia News, and this interview from WiiWare (note: this site is not a blog). Cunard (talk) 06:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Okay, and where is the significant coverage about the company, not Pop and its release? All of those are about Pop. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      This interview from Paulínia News is an article that covers Nnooo in detail. If this source, and the above sources, are not significant enough for Nnooo to pass WP:CORP, then I would propose a redirect to and brief mention at Pop (video game), instead of outright for deletion. Cunard (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Instead of just voting delete, is there anything wrong with a merge/redirect into Pop (video game), which I have done? Cunard (talk) 07:17, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, 'delete' sounds a bit more pithy than 'put it over there', but you have a point. Vote changed accordingly. -- Jelly Soup (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2009 (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Eranjinkeezhil[edit]

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

      Article is about a place that may or may not exist. No reliable sources have been provided to establish that it does. I offered to help the original author out if they could point me to any English sources, but they have not replied. I can find no such sources on my own, so being that the article is so poorly written I believe it is unsalvageable and should be deleted. KhalfaniKhaldun 20:40, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Terribly written and seems fake. Delete. CanadianNine 22:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not fake; it's a small neighborhood. Salih (talk) 04:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete It's a real village but I can't find reliable resources. If it were in the UK or US it probably wouldn't be a problem. Sad. 01:19, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
      Is it an officially recognised area, though (the usual standard for "automatic notability" of places)? I don't see it on the district's official list of settlements, for example [107]. Of course, the issue is probably being complicated by the "do it however the **** you please" style of Dravidian transcription which changes even within the article ("Eranchin Keezhil", "Eranjinkeezhil", etc.). (talk) 01:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Fails verifiability, which is even required for dots on a map which otherwise have been given an exemption from the notability requirement. I also assert lack of notability as a deletion reason. (Might be notable as the sound made when sneezing, if sources could be found! Edison (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Shane Valdez[edit]

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

      Puff piece on non-notable film-maker. No career to speak of, other than one (very) short film and a friendship with a famous musician. CalendarWatcher (talk) 05:28, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Week keep CineVegas is a notable enough festival for an award to be significant. I'm still looking in the 48 hours thing (locally to Vegas again). (I removed the ref to the Rolling Stone mag because it didn't mention Valdez while it was used to ref the sentence he did a music vid.) - Mgm|(talk) 11:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Notability is not contagious, especially regarding such a minor festival. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 11:37, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Weak Keep I don't think it's overwhelming. But his films have won awards and I think his biography is worth including. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. Awards are from a minor festival. No significant coverage of him or his films (let alone full reviews in reliable sources). Notability guideline not met. Bongomatic 23:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Bongomatic. BLP riddled with fact tags, fails WP:ENTERTAINER. لennavecia 03:51, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete not notable. --Johnnyturk888 (talk) 11:54, 2 May 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Themes in the Odyssey[edit]

      Themes in the Odyssey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      This article consists wholly of original research, it's been around for a few years, tagged for references, and has not been improved substantially. --StaniStani  00:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete WP:NOR, can't believe this has been around so long, shameful. Drawn Some (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • While there's certainly been plenty of writing on this topic which could potentially be used to write an encyclopedic article, this article isn't making use of any of it. Delete, with no prejudice against a replacement sourced against multiple scholarly analyses. Zetawoof(ζ) 06:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete Using the book itself as a source, means the themes are clearly extracted by the writer. The definition of OR. Any referenced material would need to be included in the main article anyway, instead of being split. - Mgm|(talk) 11:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete without prejudice. The article on The Odyssey ought to contain information on its themes, such an addition surely could be written, and if it gets long enough it could break out into a separate piece. But this appears to be a copy of someone's school essay. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per nom. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete as OR. Drmies (talk) 03:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. The article is just original research. RobJ1981 (talk) 04:31, 4 May 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      ByrdGang[edit]

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

      Blogs and some amazon.com links do not amount to notability (nor do they conform to verifiability standards, either). The mixtapes they've released are not notable either. Delete, delete, delete. JBsupreme (talk) 21:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      I very much agree. Delete. It could be notable if there were some interviews or something, but I can't seem to find any. --HELLØ ŦHERE 22:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete The article does not even claim that the subject is important, significant or notable, but pretty much states the opposite, that their one real album had disappointing sales of 17,000. Drawn Some (talk) 00:23, 29 April 2009 (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 was wrong--I too could not find anything reliable enough after several tries DGG (talk) 04:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      ABNA Books[edit]

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

      Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. It verifiably exists and is potentially a notable organisation (although the current sources aren't great), so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iridescent 22:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Keep I think there are enough sources for notability, though the article needs a little trimming. DGG (talk) 23:12, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment What are those sources? The article has what appear to be blogs and thecompany's website as refs. Google News only linked to what appears to be a press release. Sounds like a great place for aspiring writers, but does it satisfy WP:ORG:"An organization is generally considered notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." Edison (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete. I visited the first couple external links supplied as references, and either these links are all dead, or they all seem to contain diddly squat about this business. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:57, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete seems non-notable to me. A quick gsearch only turns up links to the company's own site CanadianNine 01:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Strong delete complete lack of third party sources [108]. LibStar (talk) 01:36, 29 April 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Elledi[edit]

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

      Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. This is a verifiable and potentially notable company, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain. – iridescent 22:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak Keep Widely sold, at least in NYC, so they have international distribution--apparently by the ton: [109]. DGG (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment The "Elledi" name appears to be a common last name in several countries, and it is hard to sort out relevant from irrelevant foreign language Google News hits. Granted they export confections, but how does that satisfy WP:N? Edison (talk) 03:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Notable per WP:CORP, it is a 40 year old publicly traded company and independent references exist. You might compare them to Lefèvre-Utile Biscuit Co. or Pepperidge Farms (but without bread products) except those companies aren't even publicly traded but owned by food conglomerates, Kraft and Campbell, respectively. Drawn Some (talk) 00:17, 29 April 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Disinformation (art and music project)[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Disinformation (art and music project) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. However, it's already survived an AFD discussion before and certainly looks at least potentially notable, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain.  – iridescent 22:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Weak delete The article goes on at great length about this "project," and drops a lot of names, but is lacking references. It seems to be somewhat biographical and to contain original research. If multiple reliable and independent sources can be found, I would not oppose keeping it. Edison (talk) 23:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 23:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Ágúst Fannar Ásgeirsson[edit]

      Ágúst Fannar Ásgeirsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Procedural nom. This was {{prod}} tagged and deleted as part of User:Oo7565's random-deletion-tagging spree. His band have their own article, as does his album and four of his EPs, so I've undeleted and set up a procedural AFD discussion. Procedural nom, so I abstain.  – iridescent 22:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • Delete The article was prodded very reasonably as "Fails WP:Music." No improvements were done during or following the prod period, such as providing multiple reliable sources with significant coverage to satisfy WP:N or WP:Music. The article is full of claims of popularity, but the refs are only other articles about his music in Wikipedia, or Youtube, or Myspace. Edison (talk) 23:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • comment If not notable, there seem to be some related articles to delete as well. DGG (talk) 23:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - Fails WP:MUSIC. لennavecia 03:48, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per above. I thought deleting after the PROD was reasonable. Enigmamsg 05:32, 3 May 2009 (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. –Juliancolton | Talk 00:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Rise Against (AOL Undercover) EP[edit]

      Rise Against (AOL Undercover) EP (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable EP. There is no coverage in reliable sources, and it fails WP:NALBUMS. Timmeh! 23:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Delete Have to agree with Esradekan on this one. All coverage that I can find appears to be based on the Wikipedia article, which is apparently a permastub.—Kww(talk) 03:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
      The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

      The result was redirect to The Bachelorette . Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:06, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Jillian Harris[edit]

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

      This is a BLP about a reality television contestant from The Bachelor who is scheduled to be the next The Bachelorette. The article is very weak on content and does not establish notability beyond these two facts. Previous attempts were made to redirect, but those were reverted. It's not clear why what appears here could not be included on the individual Bachelorette season page on which she will be featured in the future. Plastikspork (talk) 23:39, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Comments - AFD: Jennifer Schefft and CSD A7: DeAnna Pappas were the last two Bachelorettes. Plastikspork (talk) 23:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to The Bachelorette The article mentions both her appearances in The Bachelor and The Bachelorette and makes for a useful redirect for people who want to know about her. As of yet, there is insufficient information for a separate article. - Mgm|(talk) 09:26, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep - More information will become available during the upcoming season (May 2009) of the Bachelorette and users will be looking for this page. This page is likely to be updated in the near future when the show air. Olipip (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment That would be possible with a redirect, as such information would naturally be included on in the article for next season's Bachelorette program (see the cited examples). As you are new to WP, you might want to read WP:SPA. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 19:41, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | Talk 00:03, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Redirect to The Bachelorette (Season 5), which currently redirects to the parent article but will inevitably become the home of the new season article. Ms. Harris has no notability currently and redirection to the show is appropriate. Nate • (chatter) 00:13, 29 April 2009 (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. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      Hotels.com[edit]

      AfDs for this article:
      Hotels.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

      Non-notable+Advertising Travelbrit (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

      • I think you might have more luck with "non-notable". Canvasback (talk) 21:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
      Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I strongly suspect they're notable as I remember their prime time commercials a few years ago. I'll change to keep if I can come up with some sources. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:01, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep I see their adds all the time. Keep if secondary reliable sources can be found. If not merge to article on parent company. Steve Dufour (talk) 00:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speedy Keep Major travel site with a heavy promotional presence on the web, in print, and on television, and part of Barry Diller's web empire. Certainly a candidate for expansion, but far from deletion in any sense. Nate • (chatter) 00:10, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep, they're a fairly major booking site. Tempshill (talk) 00:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Large hotel booking site, not really sure why it's so small though... Renaissancee (talk) 00:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete - No sources to suggest notability. Just because they advertise doesn't mean they meet WP:CORP. Rwiggum (Talk/Contrib) 02:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep Multiple reliable sources here. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 02:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Keep per the Hammer man, it looks like there actually are sources for this one, they just need to be added to the article. JBsupreme (talk) 06:22, 29 April 2009 (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.
      1. ^ WGN Radio producer Andy Hermann's Bono/Ritter Catorce Theory (scroll down to the second to last audio clip on page)
      Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_April_29&oldid=1142645946"