Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 February 27

< 26 February	28 February >

Guide to deletion

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. The AfD is being closed many years later, because it was never properly closed back then, because it was never visible, because it was never transcluded on any of the daily logpages. Technically, it has still been open this whole time.

Nobody else could ever be admitted here, because this door was made only for you. I am now going to shut it. (non-admin closure) jp×g 04:41, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Family Opera Initiative

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

I think it is absurd to delete this page or consider so. The artists working on these projects are major names. The current project, ANIMAL TALES, is the last significant work by George Plimpton. Grethe Barrett Holby is the Founder of AOP and a 15 year veteran of the industry. Eugenio Carmi, Eve Beglarian, Kitty Brazelton: these are all artists of weight. I hope a few of the bloggers here come with some knowledge of contemporary American music. Ridiculous to delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tipok (talk • contribs) 21:37, 27 February 2009

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. Icewedge (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Backyard (Graphic Novel)

Non-notable book that fails to meet WP:Notability (books). A Google search fails to turn up any references to book or authors. No references in article. ttonyb1 (talk) 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not only that but it's a future graphic novel, I believe WP:CRYSTAL addresses this. ~EdGl (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- Artw (talk) 23:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Also, there's a bit of COI here as well.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I got as far as "The Backyard will be". Delete per EdGI Tonywalton ^Talk 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Bulk of the artilce is WP:PLOT. Artw (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appears to be original research by conflict of interest editor, consisting of fictional plot with no signs of real-world significance. --Dragonfiend (talk) 07:28, 28 February 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. Non-admin closure Whpq (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cadets Canada

The subject of this article is a marketing name. This marketing name has not received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. I don't believe that it has established enough notability to warrant an article. Sancho 22:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian Cadet Movement which is the article about the organization for which this name is a trademark. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Redirect as plausible search term. -- saberwyn 11:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I (nominator) also support a redirect. Sancho 20:28, 1 March 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 - Given references do not establish notability as they are not reliable.. Chillum 15:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Cotterill

Delete First prod read: "no sources since being tagged in May 2008, quick Google search shows no reason to believe this person is notable by Wikipedia standards. Worldcat search for the ISBNs listed as his books show no matches for either." A prod tag in agreement was added, saying: "Falls well short of WP:BIO, with no independent coverage in reliable sources. Even the cited books are self-published." Both of these prod tags, as well as the tags about no sources and etc., were remoeved by an editor who claimed he added sources but added more links to the artist's own site, a mere blog, and the claims to being world famous as written by the artist statement as put on the web page of a gallery selling his work. This is a massive failure of WP:RS standards (no reliable, independent sources), and the article was created by the artist himself. DreamGuy (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I like this guy for obvious reasons (and I'm about to jack his GFDLed images) but without RS this is really just a vanity piece. WP:NOTWEBHOST, and I can't see anything there that would squeeze him through WP:CREATIVE or WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Two delete votes changed in a row today on rescued AfDs. This is a far better sourced article, certainly worth preserving. §FreeRangeFrog 04:11, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I speedy'd it (but it got rightfully declined), but it still fails BIO and RS. Only sources are self-published. flaming lawyer 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution to the world of art sculptures. You can see images of his art on most of the over 13,700 google hits [1] that reference him. His art is carried by what must be hundred's of galleries from around the world. Subject meets the criteria for WP:CREATIVE; The person's work has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition; and/or is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries. Esasus (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If what you are claiming is even remotely true, then you should have no problems finding sources that meet WP:RS to document it. Considering you were the editor who removed the prod tags and added sources that dramatically fail WP:RS as your justification for doing so, I can only conclude that the above is just bluff and bluster. From your talk page comments and edit history it seems you make a habit of going around removing prods and voting keep on most everything. DreamGuy (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making this so personal? Why do you feel the need to comment against every editor who has a different point of view than your own? Please allow other editors to make their comments without your harassment.Esasus (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So educating you about policies you either do not know or care to follow is harassment? Explaining why someone's arguments are wrong is somehow bad when I do it, but when you try (and fail) you think that's perfectly fine? You have a pretty odd idea of how you think things should work here. DreamGuy (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Esasus. You only need to glance through the available google news results to see that this is clearly a notable artist we're discussing. JulesH (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 43 hits in Google news, which is extremely low for a supposed world-famous artist. Many are clearly just reprints of pres releases sent out by the author himself. I'm not seeing any in here that would meet both the nontrivial mention AND the independent, third party criteria of our rules for such things. DreamGuy (talk) 14:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but almost all of those 43 are reliable sources. Almost all of those 43 are specifically about this artist, and are not trivial mentions as they go into some depth about his work and its reception. They provide evidence that he was featured on a regional TV show. They provide evidence that his work has featured in significant exhibitions in a number of locations. Take together, they provide plenty of sources for this article, and clearly are sufficient to pass WP:N, so I don't understand what people seem to have against this artist? JulesH (talk) 09:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per policy, press releases are not independent of the subject. Can someone point to specific references that are believed to demonstrate notability? References to a page of search results are not helpful. Bongo matic 06:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. However none of the items I linked to are press releases, and very few (perhaps only one) of those in the google search are. JulesH (talk) 21:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 1

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 13:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the work done by Schmidt MQ. Well done Michael. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no reliable independent sources cited - all his own, or galleries selling his stuff. Also, Wikipedia should not be used for self-promotion. JohnCD (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without a doubt. I have looked at all the citations given, and given my findings in detail on the article's talk page, but in brief, as JohnCD says above, they are "his own, or galleries selling his stuff". The claims above that it should be kept on the basis of lots of Google hits indicate, I think, a lack of understanding of what Wikipedia is about, quite apart from the questionable nature of those hits, as mentioned above by others. As for the comment "This artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...", I wonder what on earth the writer thinks Wikipedia is supposed to be.

JamesBWatson (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the above question: I think that Wikipedia is supposed to be a compendium of information compiled on Wikipedia for ease of reference for anyone who wishes to utilize it. The article on this artist is useful. Tim Cotterill art can be found "everywhere". He is notable by the prolific nature of his art. It seems to me that those arguing for delete are suggesting that because google hits show galleries selling his art, the article should be deleted because of self-promotion. An artist must be a self-promoter to be successful. This artist is successful. I seems to me that the real issue is Wikipedia:I Don't Like It.Esasus (talk) 23:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well not really. It's been explained that the issues here are WP:BIO and WP:RS. Whether WP editors like this fellow's tacky sculptures or otherwise is beside the point. No one has produced independent reliable sources which would support Mr Cotterill's inclusion in the 'pedia. I would humbly suggest you find such sources or desist. X MarX the Spot (talk) 00:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This article and its incoming link in Frogman (disambiguation) serve to clarify an extra and possibly confusing re-use of the word "frogman" that people may find in the public media. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is very notable. Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist. 13,700 hits! What is the debate? Keep this article. Wordssuch (talk) 15:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Above editor account was created today, exists solely to make some trivial edits, vote on a couple of AFDs, and to go around adding what appear to be bad faith deletion tags to articles I created. Looks like a clear sockpuppet/revenge account. DreamGuy (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who is DreamGuy, and why is he so antagonistic?Wordssuch (talk) 17:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What, you thought that I wasn't going to notice and be a little upset at your going through the list of articles I created, many of which are years old and have been edited by hundreds of people, and putting completely pointless tags at the top of them claiming that they aren't notable and filing ridiculous speedy deletes and prods for reasons that if applied to this article would have had it deleted days ago already? Well, whatever. Petty harassment isn't going to work. This article will be deleted and the ones you tagged won't, because mine follow Wikipedia policies and this one doesn't. DreamGuy (talk) 18:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 2

Delete Despite my earlier involvement in formatting and cleaning up this article, notability is not established by the references and no other significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:BIO. ukexpat (talk) 16:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the person who seconded the prod. The problem remains: it's still a vanity page with nothing from independent reliable sources to demonstrate WP:BIO. Listing his publications doesn't help the cause: third person reviews of his work (not on a blog or anything that is self published like a fansite) would. B.Wind (talk) 04:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting the requirements of WP:CREATIVE in that the article's sources (added since nomination) now show "The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries." His strange little frogs have been a significant part or the entire focus of dozens of exhibitions across the US. Its wild. Its bronze. And it croaks. Sad that the article has sat unattended since May, but it will greatly benefit form copyedit and expansion. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those exhibitions, galleries, or museums is notable? Note that I'm not claiming that none of them is, just that none is identified as such. There are dozens of non-notable exhibitions, galleries, and museums all across the US. Bongo matic 07:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually not a concern, as guideline states "substantial part of a significant exhibition", and has no requirement that the venue holding the exhibition has to itself be notable. If you insist I do some pointless search, I can likley find suitable articles about enough of the galleies apart from the frogman, to show that they themselves have enough notability. Sheesh. There are hundreds of them. Must I really do all that work for you? Let's use logic for a moment. Galleries do not show works if they do not have enough notability to interest patrons... or if patrons do not respond well, the work does not survive attemps to show at other galleries and quickly vanishes. This guy has been in hundreds. Stupid frogs. And the hundreds of exhibitions over 35 years aside, being notable enough to be on NBC shows a reliable source that further acknowledges his work as notable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a creative, but specious argument. There is no assumption that the random commercial enterprise (and that's what a gallery is) is notable. Most are not. While I don't think there's a guideline on notability of art galleries, one imagines that such a guideline would start with the idea that notable galleries (a) hold exhibitions that receive significant media coverage in independent reliable sources; (b) exhibit works of notable artists (this is seemingly circular until you remember that most artists do not claim notability simply by being exhibited at certain galleries); or (c), like anything, they receive significant non-trivial coverage about themselves. Hence, to demonstrate notability, the notability of the galleries must also be demonstrated. The inclusion of the word "notable" to "exhibition" and to "galleries or museums" in WP:CREATIVE cannot be interpreted to be meaningless, which the gravity-defying logic in the previous comment would do.

The same logic applies to the notability of specific exhibitions. Bongo matic 08:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now who's making a specious argument? WP:CREATIVE is a part of WP:PEOPLE and has been refined over and over by better editors than you or I. I will not second guess these editors or wonder why they included that sentence "substantial part of a significant exhibition" in WP:CREATIVE to define a requirement of notability and then somehow "forgot" to demand that the exhibition or gallery itself had to be notable in order for that requirement to apply. In all their wisdom and years of refining CREATIVE, they did not. And despite protestations, the gallery itself need not meet a criteria that does not yet exist. You are quite welcome to write up a "guideline" to describe what nakes a gallery notable or not.. and then include that seperate notability requirement in CREATIVE... but until that guideline exists, I will happily accept what WP:CREATIVE does require and your own quite creative supposition falls apart. The article is about an artist. His work meets the requirements of guideline. The article is not about a gallery. Point of information, much of your idea was discussed at the failed proposal Wikipedia:Notability (artists)... but as a guideline it was rejected. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 08:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm . . . I guess we disagree over what a "significant" exhibition is. It seems obvious to me that to be "significant", an exhibition has to meet some hurdle other than "it happened". To refactor the original question above, what is the indication that any of the exhibitions is "significant"? Bongo matic 09:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might have looked yourself, no? Sheesh. At just a quck peek, Lamantia Gallery, Vinings Gallery, Christopher Bell Gallery, Borsini-Burr Gallery, Devin Gallery, Hallmark Fine Arts Gallery, Shaffer Fine Art Gallery, et all look like they may have enough on them to pass an imaginary WP:Notability (gallery). As for significant... a broader question, as what is significant to an art gallery is not significant to a baseball stadium. Does your new question mean that the exhibition has to be entirely dedicated to one artist's work? Or that the artist's work comprise a major part of an overall exhibition at a gallery? Does the exhibitian have to be significant to the artists in its area? Or is it expected that an exhibition only counts if its at some prestigious location? Does significant mean it must be significant the artists in its area? Or that it must shake the walls of the Lourve? It is rare that art exhibitions receive coverage outside the area where the exhibition is being held. It is a rare event (like the travelling King Tut stuff of some years back) that even gets press coverage... so notability must be considered in context with what is being considered. Damn frogs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 09:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 3

Delete The sources in the article look impressive at first sight, but all appear to be promotional in nature and not reliable. The subject may well be notable, but currently, I can't see the evidence of it. --Dweller (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Several google news results. Notable. Also 4 magazines found here which means the artist exceeds all notability.
- "Western Art & Architecture" - Spring/Fall 2008
- "Art World News" - January 2008
- "Collect It!" - March 2008
- Arts d'Elles et d'Ils - November 2008 Ikip (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you trust the artist' own web page on that? If we had independent sources, sure. We don't know that these are not paid advertising, etc. And, as mentioned a zilliont ime above and on talk, the news results are primarily trivial and reprints of press releases. How sloppy. DreamGuy (talk) 18:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DreamGuy, I did not so naive to post these articles in an attempt to convince you, please.

So you trust the artist' own web page on that?

No, I trust me own eyes. Take two seconds to look at the site. The sculptor added photos and links to the articles in question. I know that the long article in Collect will not qualify as an indepent source to you, nor the Arts d'Elles et d'Ils, but I think other netural editors will see that notability policy has been met. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Western Art & Architecture" is a paid-membership publication, so this artist's profile there is self-authored and therefore not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you verify that Freshacconci? thanks Ikip (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing that now. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to his member's profile. At the top of the page there's info on becoming a member. Notice the text in the member's profile is identical to the text in the artist's profile he shows on his website as an independent feature in Western Art & Architecture. freshacconci talktalk 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Collect It! and Arts d'Elles et d'Ils appear to be trade publications with a (possible) pay-to-play situation. It's difficult to find much about Art World News. This may be a legitimate third-party source, but as such would appear to be the only one. freshacconci talktalk 19:30, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I took a look at the info page for Arts d'Elles et d'Ils found here. My English-Canadian high school French is piss-poor, but the gist of what it says is that there is no selection criteria for appearing in this magazine. It may not be a paid listing but it's an open listing. Someone with more advanced French may want to double-check my translation, but if I'm correct, this is not a legitimate source. freshacconci talktalk 19:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE nominators messsage on my talk page User talk:Ikip: [2]

Actually, there is some information that Freshacconci was nice enough to provide, but nothing conclusive. The Collect it! article in particular seems to be from an independent source. For BLP reasons, I would be careful about saying such things as "scammed by the guy, admit your impression was influenced by deceptive promotional tactics". I personally always try to assume that every new editor has the best intentions in mind. I believe every good faith editor is valuable, and has a lot to add to the project when he comes to wikipedia.

Freshacconci is the person who argues that some of these magazines may be promotional, but he is voting weak keep, I think this is "intellectually honest". Do you?

And just a suggestion, a couple of months ago I asked a nominator for deletion to close the nomination because the evidence I had provided. Instead he came back and argued even more for deletion. The tone of your message almost guarantees that I am not going to come back here in a good mood, ready to comprimise and admit I am wrong. In otherwords, I probably would have forgotten this AfD if it weren't for your message, but now I am back, one more person to shoot holes in your arguments, that isn't good for your quest to delete a "scam" and "deceptive promotional tactics". Ikip (talk) 15:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 4

(outdent) Weak keep Looking through the google search: on one hand, there's a huge list of legitimate sources who mention Cotterill in passing. On the other hand, they are all the result of press-release announcements (i.e. Cotterill or representative galleries have sent out the P.R. and papers decide to run it as is, or rewrite it based on the copy given). Were these the only sources available, and were considerably far less in number, this would be a clear delete. The sources would be trivial and not substantial. But as MichaelQSchmidt has pointed out below, the siginficant number of trivial sources add up to substantial coverage. The use of pay-for-play sources is discouraging and these should be removed. I'm always more comfortable with more substantitive sources, sources with some meat to them. But WP:NOTE doesn't require that. This article needs a good thorough edit and those editors with a connection to the artist should step back and let other, more neutral editors clean this up so it does not function as yet another promotional vehicle for the artist (note his linking to Wikipedia here. But in any case, whatever I may feel about this guy's work, he has some notability by the very basic definition of notability for Wikipedia. Also, I'd like to point out the bad-faith editing and stalking of DreamGuy engaged in by Wordssuch. The latter needs to be cautioned about such practices. We can all disagree here, but that kind of behaviour isn't helpful. freshacconci talktalk 20:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AfD notification on Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Ikip (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 19:16, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sloppy? There are sources offered by the proffered g-search (and discounting the articles about a different Cotterill) that were NOT the artist's website that show his work as being exhibited at numerous galleries worldwide. The January 2008 Art World News coverage of Cotterill was short, but it explicitly told how one of his works was to be part of a permanent installation. The article in Collect it! Magazine as written by Val Baynton was most definitely in-depth and significant coverage of the artist and his works. Continued refusal to recognize the notability of this fellow becomes more and more confusing in light of the overwhelming evidence. Further confusion is caused by dismissively ignoring the multiple in-depth articles, and then concentrating on some perceived flaw in the use of SPS... since they are specifically allowed in certain circumstances under existing guideline.

The first proviso of WP:PEOPLE states "The topic of an article should be notable, or "worthy of notice"; that is, "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded."... and as a multi exhibited artist, and one whose works have become part of permanent istallations, he is worthy of notice PER GUIDELINE.
WP:PEOPLE also grants that "Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject", so you may not like it, but the use of primary sources is specifically allowed by the guideline. You are welcome to propose rewriting the guideline if you wish, but please don't dismiss it as inapplicable.
Further, WP:PEOPLE states, "If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability". What has been offered to editors are sources that are either "significant and in-depth" OR "more than trivial but less than exclusive" OR "that show his work as repeatedly and continually exhibited". Unless one simply does not like the artist or his works, it is painfully obvious that he meets the inclusion criteria.

Damn frogs. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can we assume some good faith here? This is a discussion and you are attempting to make editors' minds up for them with logic games (i.e. if you don't agree with my logic then you must be !voting for deletion based on subjective criteria). As far as I'm concerned, none of the sources are conlusive yet. I'd like to look through some more sources. I've already found one pay-to-play source used. That indicates more could be as well. freshacconci talktalk 19:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies to you, as my response was to the nom's statement above calling another editor sloppy. My own searches have found multiple sources toward notability under WP:CREATIVE that are not pay-per-view. My concern is for his declaring the artist and his works as non-notable in direct contravention to guideline, and felt compelled to carefully point out the applicable guideline in response to his not acknowledging them. Yes, AGF all around. That being said, I trust your own diligent search will include world-wide library databases and newspaper/magazine archives that are not pay-per-view. Luck to you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I'm trying to do. This is part of what I do for a living. Research, that is, not hunting sources for Wikipedia. Nobody's paying me for that (yet). freshacconci talktalk 19:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From your comments above, that was my specific impression. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:06, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement that claiming those as reliable sources for notability was sloppy. Those were, in fact, paid ads and press releases. Anyone off the street who pays money could get in those. The artist is clearly trying to look more impressive than he is by quoting ads he bought as if they were independent news articles. It's a classic scam, and some people fell for it. That's extremely sloppy. Sorry if you're offended by that. Take it as a learning experience to avoid being duped in the future instead of blaming the messenger. 14:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment As I comment below, the practice of newspapers paroting press releases says something about newspaper standards, but that's a distinction we can make here. The fact is, numerous publication independent of the artist have mentioned this artist. Yes, the individual newspaper "articles" (I use the term reservedly and with tongue held tight) are trivial. But that there are more than a few adds up to substantial coverage by third-party sources, regardless of quality. There's nothing we can do about it if we follow Wikipedia policy. freshacconci talktalk 14:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Our criteria is for multiple independent (pres releases are not) non-trivial (mere mentions, etc., are not) sources establishing notability. NOTHING like that has ever been shown about this person. Far from it, in fact. The consistent lack of any independent nontrivial sources for someone who appears in so many shops is very telling. He's had all the chances in the world for people to take notice on their own, and they haven't. That's pretty clear cut indication that this person is not taken seriously by the art world at large. DreamGuy (talk) 14:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 5

Keep per WP:HEY. Searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper articles that show this is a notable artist. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he's mentioned in a number of newspapers, but as far as I can see they're all gallery listings, what's-on in town kind of things. That would be OK if the exhibitions were significant (ie museum shows). Fails WP:CREATIVE because the exhibitions aren't significant, and fails WP:BIO because the coverage is trivial. The NBC segment looks to me to be the definition of trivial.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are in disagreement with interpretation of that portion of WP:CREATIVE. However, I am fine with the total body of worlwide coverage... the trivial, the more-than-trivial, and the substantive all adding up to notability per guideline. Thank you. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't any interesting and famous things about him. 98.119.177.171 (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable per WP:BIO. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that the word "gallery" has two quite distinct meanings in connection with art. There are "galleries" which exist to display arts of the public, on the basis of merit: in other words effectively museums. Then there "galleries" which exist to act as sales points, on the basis of a commercial arrangement with the artist; in other words effectively shops. I have looked at the websites of all of the galleries mentioned above by Schmidt. Most of them clearly were and the others apparently were commercial galleries selling his works: in other words we are asked to think he is notable because he pays the owners of numerous shops to stock his products. This is not remotely the same as having his works displayed in several independent galleries, which display work to the public on the basis of perceived merit. Anyone could arrange to have their work sold by numerous art shops, so this is no measure at all of notability. Thus when Wordssuch says "Even if the several The Gallery links publish a similar artist bio, it does not diminish that fact that all of these many Galleries are all third party sources which evidence that they display this artist" he is mistaken: they are not independent third party sources, and the only thing they show "evidence" for is the existence of a commercial arrangement with the artist.

Bearian says "searches by disinterested editors appear to have found plenty of good newpaper [sic] articles that show this is a notable artist". However, he does not tell us what newspaper articles or where. Certainly the articles listed by Ikip are not in newspapers in any reasonable sense of the word. Also they were not found by "searches by disinterested editors": Ikip simply quotes links on the artist's website.

I have carefully gone through every one of the comments above and followed up a significant proportion of the links given, and it seems that virtually all of the comments in favour of keeping the article are based on ignoring, or failing to appreciate, the difference between on the one hand a source which indicates a high degree of commercial activity and success in gaining attention, and on the other hand an independent source which indicates a high degree of notability. Neither the article nor the comments above succeed in indicating that the artist has notability in Wikipedia's sense. None of the sources given as support for notability is an independent source.

Finally the most remarkable (to me) comment of all: "this artist is creating a very unique and valuable ($$) contribution ...". Apparently the writer of this comment thinks that selling works for a lot of money makes one notable.

GeorgeWeller (talk) 13:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course, you need to ignore a few of the "keeps" simply because their !vote for keep is based on a misunderstanding of Wikipedia policy. Nevertheless your distinction between critical notability and commercial notability is not a distinction Wikipedia makes per WP:NOTE. Most of the google hits point to publications independent of the artist. That they are merely repeating points forwarded by a press release perhaps says something about the newspaper industry but, regardless, they point to a minor notability. A few trivial sources wouldn't cut it, but there are more than a few here. We cannot make a judgment on the art, nor how the artist shows his work or earns his living. We may not like Paris Hilton or feel that her notability is deserved. But she is notable nonetheless. With the sources available, this artist just squeaks by. If you look at my userpage or my contributions you'll see what kind of art I'm interested in. If I were writing a book on important contemporary art, my criteria for inclusion would be quite different from Wikipedia's notability standards. But as original research, my book could include whatever I wanted it to include. This is an encyclopedia and as such we remain neutral and make no judgments on the subjects. Consider it a flaw if you must, but that's how Wikipedia defines notability. This will never be a major article and I can't imagine it could make it to featured article status, given the lack of sources with depth, but the available sources, trivial as they may be, point to a minor notability. freshacconci talktalk 14:01, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This comment misinterprets GeorgeWeller's distinction. Of course there is a distinction between commercial and non-commercial mentions of products (which is GeorgeWeller's point)—this is why paid notices are not considered independent reliable sources, and why independent news coverage is considered to be such. This is not a question of "critical notability" versus "commercial notability." A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. Bongo matic 14:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're ignoring the rest of what I said. There is independent coverage, like it or not. They're trivial fluff pieces, but the number basically adds up to notability by Wiki standards. freshacconci talktalk 14:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Bongomatic: you are quite right. The Wikipedia Notability guideline says "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. Contrary to what Freshacconci seems to think, information which comes from such sources is not "independent coverage". And no, I don't think Bongomatic was ignoring the rest of what Freshacconci said. GeorgeWeller (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple fluff pieces absolutely DO NOT make someone notable. Where on earth could you get that idea? If that's ALL the person has, it's a clear cut case of NOT being notable. DreamGuy (talk) 14:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I got that idea from here. It states, in full: "A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be needed to prove notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability." Note the last sentence. Trivial coverage may not be sufficient to establish notability. It clearlyy states may not not is not, i.e. it's a guideline open to interpretation and concensus, as it states at the top of that page: "This notability guideline for biographies is not policy; however, it reflects consensus reached through discussions and reinforced by established practice, and informs decisions on whether an article on a person should be written, merged, deleted or further developed." My interpretation of this guideline leans towards "keep" based on the multiple, independent sources, trivial as they may be. Sorry, that's my personal reading of the guideline, as crappy as this art is. freshacconci talktalk 14:55, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A non-notable product doesn't become notable simply because it is sold in a number of outlets—that simply isn't a criterion for notability. -- is Special K notable? If so, why? THF (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

frog break 6

I'm generally a deletionist, but this seems to me to be a Weak Keep and Improve under WP:CREATIVE: "The person has created [a] collective body of work [that] has been the subject of ... multiple independent periodical articles". George Weller makes a very strong and persuasive argument why there is a distinction between a Cotterill and artists displayed in museums, but that just goes to the gallery prong of WP:CREATIVE. A commercial artist who sells popular collectibles (the spam filter won't let me link to Ebay here) is indistinguishable in that sense to a popular commercial WP:AUTHOR who sells his books to publishers who sell them to intermediate bookstores for resale--and we have lots of articles about minor genre authors who have sold much less than Cotterill has (recognizing that OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not by itself a reason for inclusion). I don't see WP:CREATIVE as restricted to highbrow art. Cotterill's works are widely traded and known. There exist reliable sources (albeit not ones readily available on the web) from which an article can be written about his life and work. I think a number of the delete !votes are overreacting to the WP:PROMOTION violation, but WP:COI is not a reason by itself to delete an article. THF (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So find proof of multiple independent periodical articles instead of paid ads, press releases, and mere trivial mentions. So far nobody has been able to do it. And, honestly, COI is a strong indicator that an article should be deleted, as it shows that the person has to write about himself if he wants anyone to pay attention. No independent editor wrote this, just like no independent magazines cover him, and so forth. DreamGuy (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

COI is not a reason for deletion. That's it. Get over it. And the google search clearly shows the independent coverage. Multiple trivial sources count. I'm sorry, but that's the way it is. freshacconci talktalk 14:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's NOT the way it is, and if yo make the claim that it is yo need to back that up with some actual Wikipedia policy. It's the exact OPPOSITE of what the policy says. Trivial sources do not count. It says so right in the policy. Period. DreamGuy (talk) 14:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Fails WP:BIO and WP:RS.--Cameron Scott (talk) 14:22, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Cameron Scott - it is improper to remove the list of magazine article and external links while the discussion is still in progress. Esasus (talk) 21:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Use the {{verify credibility}} or {{citecheck}} tags instead of removing sources. THF (talk) 21:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They've already BEEN reviewed and showed to NOT meet Wikipedia criteria. Complaining about their removal is just sheer stubborn wikilawyering and ignoring of policies to try to get one's own way. DreamGuy (talk) 14:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freshacconci's frog break

Final comment I can't believe I've spent so much time on this. Arguing "keep" for a guy who makes fucking glass frogs. I was going to work on the Stan Douglas article. You know, an artist who's exhibited internationally, who's been written about in all the major art publications, been part of bieniales, major musuem collections. An article that is pretty crappy at the moment. Oh well. Onwards and upwards. freshacconci talktalk 14:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Another final comment - Somebody's law is relevant here (I wish I could remember whose): "If you have to write your own article, you're not notable." JohnCD (talk) 14:44, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That's just some twit's personal criteria for notability. Unfortunately, it has not become Wikipedia policy. If it were, this would have been a speedy delete. freshacconci talktalk 14:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not policy; but it's a witty reminder that if an article is self-promotion the references to establish notability need to be scrutinized with particular care. JohnCD (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's why there's no article on me (the real me, not Freshacconci; Freshacconci stands a better chance for notability than the guy typing this [3], [4], [5]). freshacconci talktalk 15:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real evidence of wider repute, nor any real sources attesting to such. Nor is a gallery showing an automatic indication of anything other than of having work displayed: without actual reliable sources explaining why he's exhibiting or discussing his work, it's meaningless. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"A" gallery showing? Perhaps. Hundreds over 35 years? Different story. Perhaps time to rewrite the part of WP:CREATIVE that does not require RS explaining "why" he's exhibiting his work... that part that only states that he must have done so. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wish to voice my own growing concern over my perception of WP:IDONTLIKEIT on the part of the nom. It would seem a discussion best kept on this page was taken to the talk page of an editor who opined a keep... questioning their integrity and belief in the notability of this artist. diff 1. Bad form. And then to visit the page of an non-biased admin and question their interpretation of the ongoing discussion? diff 2. Bad form. That he chooses to ignore some arguments in favor, or dismisses other's interpretations of guideline is fine... but perhaps he might wait until the AfD is closed to make arguments best seen at a DRV? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've never before encountered an editor as antagonistic as DreamGuy. He argues against every opinion that differs from his own, then takes his abuse to the editor's talk page, and even into other discussions. I consider his tactics that of a bully, and I find his obsessive ownership of the delete opinion to be disruptive to the discussion. He has also been deleting references and external links from the article while the article is under discusion. What is the proper procedure to deal with such a guy? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, enforcing clear Wikipedia policies is a GOOD thing. Reponding to false claims by people who aren;t following policy should be welcomed so that people can learn from their mistakes. You're just upset someone dares to disagree with you and has spooted your longstanding campaign to go around making false claims about articles up for deletion.

Delete per WP:BIO. Any article that starts right out by claiming "world reknown" had better produce something really strong to back that up. This isn't even close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a simple fix per WP:CLEANUP, not deletion. And it might be noted that while editors have been trying to address concerns at the article during this AfD, the nom is undoing them. Hard to improve an article to address concerns if its not being allowed. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

an over-the-top claim needs to be referenced or removed, it is not a ground for deletion. I have also noticed that the nom is deleting improvemnets made to the article during the discussion. I wonder what the nom's COI is? Esasus (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That right there is a massive violation of WP:AGF. I have no COI. I just want Wikipedia policies to be accurately enforced. I couldn't care less about this spammer who made his own article about himself as an individual. I'm opposed to abuse of this project as a whole. Too bad so many abusers showed up to support this scam artist. DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Been removed. Easy fix. No one else thought to do it? Are some so eager to toss this on the bonfire that they do not consider how easy it is to improve?? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the issue of repeated removal of external links and other information from the article -

User:Cameron Scott have repeatedly removed the Magazine Articles and External links from the article while the discussion is going on. This is very bad form and should stop. How can the article be rescued if good faith attempts at improving the article are repeatedly sabatoged? Does the closing editor have a comment on the pratice of negative edits during a discussion? Esasus (talk) 23:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not bad form to remove items from an article under AfD. Improving an article includes removing items which do not belong. As Cameron Scott and myself explained in the edit summaries (and on your talk page), the removal of these items was necessary, as 3 of the magazine articles were not legitimate sources and half the links were repeats. I removed the 3 magazines and explained why, above and in the edit summaries. There's nothing disruptive about this. Improving an article is sometimes about removing things. freshacconci talktalk 00:00, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Input from Michael Q. Schmidt and Ikip shows the article can be improved if someone bothered to take the time to rewrite the article and add proper references. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

�DreamGuy (talk) 14:26, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are twice as many comments headed "delete" as headed "keep". It seems to me that all of the arguments given by those who favour keeping depend on failure to grasp that none of the sources offered to establish notability are independent sources. The following passage from Wikipedia:NOTE was quoted above, but I will quote it again for convenience of reference: "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc. All of the sources cited fail by this criterion, being either quotes from the artist's publicity, material from people paid by the artist to promote or sell his work, or in other ways derived from him. Further, Wikipedia:SELFPUB says: As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable it is. Companies which promote an artist's work as a commercial deal, and publicity magazines which reproduce press-releases verbatim usually do no scrutinizing of evidence and arguments at all. Finally, Wikipedia:SELFPUB also goes on to say: Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons (my emphasis). If I give you what I want published, and you publish it, how much different is that from self-publishing? Not very. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:40, 4 March 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. yandman 16:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brett Edward Stout

Non-notable author, his work is self-published. His other career does not make him notable. This has gone through a speedy deletion tag and a prod, and has been deleted twice previously. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the contents of the article aren't substantially (e.g., better) than the deleted version(s), then this is a clear WP:CSD#G4 speedy. As it stands there's nothing there that would hold up to WP:BIO or anything else. §FreeRangeFrog 22:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, and I meant to say delete, based on the above. §FreeRangeFrog 22:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for recreation of previously deleted article... If it's being recreated by some editor account or clear sock, should look into a stern warning about COI/spamming. DreamGuy (talk) 22:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment CSD G4 does not apply here as this article has not previously been deleted via a deletion discussion only by CSD A7. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, NN/self-published....but why doesn't this come up "2nd nom"? 7triton7 (talk) 06:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first AfD nomination. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sorry, but there is no evidence that this person is notable as either an author or as a motion picture director. Speedy does not apply, per Malcolmxl5. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 2 March 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 Parkland School District#Elementary schools. Fritzpoll (talk) 18:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kernsville Elementary School

Unsourced, fails general notability guideline due to lack of reliable sources, and elementary schools are not usually notable. —Snigbrook 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - To district or city page. School articles are very rarely deleted as far as I can see. §FreeRangeFrog 23:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Parkland School District#Elementary schools per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 23:16, 27 February 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) Erik9 (talk) 01:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UFC 101

WP:CRYSTAL - none of the details have been confirmed —Snigbrook 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of UFC events until officially announced by the UFC. --aktsu ^(t / c) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per below. --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reliable source citing a single match, and the month of August. Venue, city, and day still unannounced. Drr-darkomen (talk) 15:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
City and state of venue was added. 19:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mmafan420 (talk • contribs)
Keep There now is a reliable source for the match.--2008Olympian^chitchat 19:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now sufficient verifiable content to warrant the existence of the article.--Drr-darkomen (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is now enough verifiable content to keep this article. Mmafan420 (talk) 05:01, 3 March 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. yandman 16:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, claudius 'A touch of murder'

Contested PROD. However, this article is a fork from I, Claudius (TV series) and List of I, Claudius episodes and adds little to either; there's nothing to establish independent notability of this episode above any of the others. Rodhull andemu 22:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know its not very good at the moment or notable, but it will be soon it just needs some work. I don't think the I, Claudius page gives enough depth and just skims over the surface of the TV series and by adding an episode guide for each episode, it will mean that people can learn more about the episodes. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 22:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Merge and Redirect to List of I, Claudius episodes - brief plot detail of each episode would seem valuable in the main article (if referenced and not WP:OR) but there seems insufficent reason to cleave off just one episode into a full article. The argument by Beinghuman900 above is dubious - if the main article does not have enough depth improve the main article - don't create another one. Pedro : Chat 22:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument to delete is about WP:OTHERSTUFF; Notability of fiction is tricky but this will have substantial viewing figures and the BBC DVD boxsets sell well. Not a great article at present, but the creator - whilst having isses in the past - has demonstrated good faith edits in trying to improve the article since its earlier csd. WP:Television_episodes suggests Avoid listing episodes for AfD unless they are completely unverifiable and original research. - there is a notability process for episodes if necessary. I undertake to help tidy the article. -- Chzz ► 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF doesn't really apply to this debate; this is more what I had in mind. --Rodhull andemu 23:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, however, this is quite an iconic, classic series with some of the biggest UK TV stars in their early careers. The creation of this article might provoke ones for other episodes. I've already started work to improve the article and would appreciate the opportunity to give it a chance to develop. -- Chzz ► 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It isn't a fork it is an article on a single episode containing an expanded plot summary and real world information on its airing. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whilst not participating on the merits of the article, can I suggest that the title A Touch of Murder (I, Claudius episode) or some equivalent would be better? Best wishes Fritzpoll (talk) 08:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Episode of a particularly notable TV series, often ranking highly on lists of the best British drama series ever produced. I see no reason we shouldn't have individual episode articles for this series. JulesH (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Evidently notable, this is a breakout, not a fork. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do intend to write episode articles for the other episodes as well. Like earlier post have said, this is one the Britain's greatest TV programs, so episode guides are almost necessary, so people can know more about this epic and iconic drama. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 15:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Keep. The nominator's reasoning is faulty. The statement "there's nothing to establish independent notability of this episode above any of the others" can just as well lead to the conclusion that the other episodes should have articles as it can mean that this one shouldn't. This is one of the most celebrated TV drama series ever, so if individual episodes can't have articles then we might as well just have a blanket prohibition on all TV episode articles. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify that my reasoning may well have been true at the time it was written, but may not be now. And there has been disagreement in the past over whether individual episodes of some television series have achieved sufficient independent notability to warrant a whole article. --Rodhull andemu 20:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - should be renamed to A Touch of Murder. ~EdGl (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to List of I, Claudius episodes: there is no indication that this particular episode has any prominence beyond the series as whole, and no "significant coverage" on this particular episode to support a separate article. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - although it does need improvements. Wordssuch (talk) 15:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to A Touch of Murder per WP:NAME (should another article of that name be needed, A Touch of Murder (I, Claudius) would be a plausible alternative). There is no blanket prohibition of articles on individual television episodes - counterexamples involving South Park and Doctor Who are abundant - provided the article itself demonstrates the episode's individual notability. B.Wind (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the name should be changed to A Touch of Murder (I, Claudius) but I don't know how to do it. Could anybody help please. (Beinghuman900 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I went ahead and moved the page per naming conventions. Hope it's okay I did it in the middle of an AfD... ~EdGl (talk) 18:38, 3 March 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. yandman 16:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

George Carruthgers (kickboxer)

This was originally a proposed deletion that was about to expire. I removed the prod tag because I saw an objection to the deletion on the talk page. However I do believe the article should be deleted. There are no third-party reliable sources to show why this person is notable, furthermore much of the information is not verified which is a clear violation of WP:BLP. There is a spirited defense of the article on the talk page, but I'm not convinced of its veracity. -- Atama ^chat 21:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. —- Atama ^chat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —- Atama ^chat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —- Atama ^chat 22:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No references, absolutely no Google footprint even when one spells his name right. THF (talk) 11:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The 'karate career' is copied from here [6]. Much of the detail in the 'profesional career' (and the stuff on the talk page) from here. [7]. I don't think he satisfies WP:Athlete, and I'm not sure what the notability guidelines for chiropractors are - certainly seems to have published a lot. I think with a lot of work this article would make a reasonable stub. pablo_hablo. 11:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, no reliable sources, does not meet WP:ATHLETE exception.--2008Olympian^chitchat 17:43, 2 March 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. yandman 16:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Crow Riley

Delete apparent vanity page for a writer, sourced to his own works. An editor wanted speedy but there seems to be some vague claim to notability here, so let's go through the process and delete it the unspeedy way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can only reiterate what I said in my initial discussion. Any "notability" here is an illusion. I did thorough research on the author in question. There are no copies of his work at bookstores, not even reputable online bookstores. I'm not sure how much more needs to be discussed. How can a self-published writer with no apparent following be considered "encyclopedic"? Over the years, and my time on Wikipedia, I've seen far more notable writers than Joseph Crow Riley get deleted instantly, and they were actually published by true publishers! If you can demystify the "vague claim to notability," which must exist outside himself, then perhaps we can keep this discussion going. Otherwise, I believe it's completely absurd to allow an author to write their own page and self-cite. Furthermore, he added his own "caution" tags to protect himself from deletion and to fool editors and administrators into looking over the page as if it's something authentic in progress. Check the history. Again, after conducting several hours of research, there is no way this author should be on Wikipedia. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing to bring to your attention. He called his first poem THE ONE "highly acclaimed" yet there's no mention of it anywhere. I would think a highly acclaimed poem would be easy to track down whether online or offline, but that's not the case here. It's clearly self-promotion with no credible sources. Thepagemakerandchecker (talk) 22:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ~200 or so unique hits in Google, zero book hits. I see a few websites where his poems are published, but none of those could be considered third-party reliable sources as to his notability. §FreeRangeFrog 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Blatant self-promotion. Self-written. Self-cited. No credible outside sources available. No notability. Please delete. Johnny Two Times (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)— Johnny Two Times (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete - I cannot find any sources writing about this poet, or any infomation to satisfy verifiability -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 2 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nguyen Ba Thanh

This vietnamese communist is hardly notable. There are around a hundred of Secretaries of the Communist Party Committee in Vietnam and there's no reason for each of them to have a page on WP. This communist hasn't done anything to be noticed outside of his small city. This article does not have any citations either. Actually all articles about communists should be deleted. Communists should burn in hell. 212.116.219.92 (talk) 23:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC) Text copied from article talk page. ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 21:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, I'm aware that the IP's last two points are very counterproductive, but it hardly does to edit these things when moving them, so please don't all complain at once. The rest of the rationale at least merits discussion. ➲ redvers ^{see my arsenal} 21:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - "small city"? it's the 4th largest city in the country and has a population of over 750,000. The article needs sourcing, but I fail to see how he is not-notable. And the closing remarks (and lack of account) make me seriously question motives. Grandmartin11 (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - clear notability as a politician, verified from, e.g.- this article from Da Nang city website. Parslad (talk) 23:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nominator's rational is flawed. Notability is asserted in the article, and based on Parslad's link, can be proved. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as a clearly abusive nomination. I would remind the nominator that having a Wikipedia article about a person is not a badge of honour, or any kind of endorsement of that person's views. We have plenty of articles about people that many would consider should burn in hell. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:30, 28 February 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, per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:42, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moishe's Bagel

Fails WP:MUSIC - no secondary, non-trivial, reliable sources. Dalejenkins | 21:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Of course, before you nominated this, you did search for ref's yourself, because it only took 30 sec to find The Daily Telegraph; [8] and The Guardian; [9] quotes. Just because an article doesn't have references doesn't mean it should be deleted, it just means it doesn't have references. Passes WP:MUSIC#C1. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. The above response is absolutely devastating to the case for deletion.--S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable band. Article needs work, but no reason to delete.--Michig (talk) 10:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, as we shouldn't attempt to have articles deleted simply because they need a little work. H₂O Shipper 01:32, 1 March 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, CSD G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Do Not Hook Up

CRystal ball. Song was mentioned in interivew as POSSIBLY the enxt single, it is not confirmed, or announced. The source in the article is a blog. The image for the single cover is fan made, as the song is not a single, and no single is due for several months yet (and it's a poor job with photoshop creating the image) Alankc (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete G4: Recreation of deleted material. See previous discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(I Do Not) Hook Up. Aspects (talk) 21:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —Aspects (talk) 22:41, 27 February 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. yandman 16:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FIA Formula Two Championship

Page is redundant, Formula Two article already exists Eightball (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then be bold and redirect it, there was no need to bring this to AfD. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge then redirect. Perfect example of when to be bold. Royal broil 04:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per the convincing arguments below, and split the type of racing from the championship. I hadn't considered this approach. Struck out previous comment. Royal broil 03:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a bold redirect wouldn't have hurt either. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - full series similar to GP2 Series and World Touring Car Championship.... I don't see the latter merged in with Touring car racing. Page is only likely to grow over time with results.... and the Formula Two page is extremely long as it is. D.M.N. (talk) 09:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Formula Two should be about the type of racing, European Formula Two Championship should be split from it, and FIA Formula Two Championship kept as a separate, different from the old European F2. --Pc13 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure. Should we then have Formula One for the formula itself and Formula One World Championship for the series? Actually, I think we probably should, shouldn't we? Readro (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There's been several different inceptions of F2 though I believe yet only one "main" one for F1. Maybe a main History of Formula Two article is needed? (such discussion would need to take place @ WT:MOTOR) D.M.N. (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Formula One is the definition of the category itself. There is a definite difference between the formula and the championship. It's not about how many incarnations of the category there have been but the acknowledgement that the set of rules is fundamentally not the same thing as the world championship. Readro (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The history of the F1 World Championship is more tied to the history of F1 as a category itself than the history of F2 is with any existing championship. The case with Formula Two is more similar to that of Formula 3000, IMHO. Maybe we should follow what was done with this one. --Pc13 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There was pre-world championship F1, from 1947. From 1950, there was no Formula One World Championship, but the World Drivers' Championship. The F1 World Championship only came into being in 1981 when the old championship was abolished. What about the non-championship races? What about the British F1 series? What about the South African F1 series? Simply, we need one page for Formula One the category and another for the WDC/F1WC. Readro (talk) 15:29, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've started a discussion at WT:F1 about this (see here) as it's clear that this warrants a seperate discussion. D.M.N. (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename - Get rid of the "FIA" bit from the title. We don't use it in the articles for F1, WTCC, the old F2 or any of the other FIA championships. It's a different championship from the old Formula Two so definitely deserves its own page. Readro (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - We use "FIA" in FIA GT Championship. The title "FIA F2" should be used here because there is no regional identification in the name. --Pc13 (talk) 10:25, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'd argue that FIA GT is used solely because "GT Championship" isn't the best title. Same with FIA Sportscar Championship. The359 (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Formula Two is an article about the type of racing (an overview basically), while FIA Formula Two Championship is about one particular series/league/championship of that form of racing (Other F2 series have their own article, Australian Formula 2 for example). In any case the old F2 and new F2 are different in all but name. They are only as similar as something like say GP2 or World Series by Renault (two other championships of similar levels). AlexJ (talk) 14:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Well the F1 page works perfectly fine without the FIA part. They both should do the same thing. Chubbennaitor 15:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As per User:AlexJ. Cs-wolves (talk) 19:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlexJ. The series shares a name but little else with its predecessors. Ideally, a separate page should be created for the defunct European Championship as per Pc13, as has been done with the similar case of Formula 3000.--Diniz (talk) 11:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AlexJ. Formula Two and the new FIA F2 World Championship are not interchangeable subjects. Quite obviously. F1 needs to follow this example as well. Bretonbanquet (talk) 00:50, 4 March 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 Straight Outta Lynwood. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Virus Alert

Bringing this to AfD at the request of User:147.70.242.54, who cites the following reason: "Uncited article about a recording that was never released as a single. Not all recordings by notable artists are themselves notable. Several attempts to redirect it to the article for the album containing this song were reverted (the last be an admin stating in her edit note: 'revert: gather consensus first'). This clearly is not notable by itself and does not merit a standalone article. If it cannot be redirected, it must be deleted." As the person presenting the nomination, I will post my recommendation below. B.Wind (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Straight Outta Lynwood, the album containing the song. There is plenty of precedent to redirect to the album when there appears insufficient evidence of notability of a recording outside of the album. For this article to be kept, there needs to be sourcing and an indication of the song's notability on its own. B.Wind (talk) 21:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and close debate early. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 2 March 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. yandman 16:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MusicMaximum Hot 100

Contested prod. Unsourced article about a purported music chart. Not only is it without any support from reliable sources (www.MusicMaximum.com is a site that has nothing to do with this), there seems no evidence for the existence of the list itself. Wikipedia cannot keep this article without demonstrating the importance... and the existence... of this supposed music chart. B.Wind (talk) 20:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Apparent hoax. Added child article to AFD, no reason to deal with the two separately.—Kww(talk) 21:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hoax that's sole reason of existance seems to be to add faux sources to the article for the non-notable band CCMZ. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 21:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - hoax - eo (talk) 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete Go ahead and deleted because I see why it should be deleted but it is not a hax. No hoax but should be clearly be deleted —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.133.30 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a hoax because this chart does not exist. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:41, 3 March 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. yandman 16:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sayre Metro Area

WP:OR, The US census bureau doesn't recognize any metropolitan area around Sayre, Pennsylvania. Previously deprodded. ccwaters (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking the creator's definition of the "Sayre Metro Area" is actually Bradford County, Pennsylvania in its entirety. For those unfamilar with the region: I agree with the US Census bureau, there's nothing metropolitan about it. ccwaters (talk) 21:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not identified as an SMSA by the U.S. Census Bureau. Bradford County, Pennsylania is not an urban area by any stretch of imagination. B.Wind (talk) 02:13, 28 February 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. Comments make it clear.. Tone 22:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SONIDEP

Article about a corporation that does not explain why it is notable or even list notable contributions ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Faith Nomination User above nominated article for speedy deletion within a minute of its creation, as he apparently does with numerous articles, instead of waiting for even the first version of the article assess notability, etc. As the creator, I've had to drop everything to keep it from being wrongfully speedy deleted and haven't gotten beyond even the first edit. In between head thumps I might add third part sources within the next few minutes, but frankly this kind of bad behavior makes one longtime contributor want to ditch this entire thing. T L Miles (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The organisation which controls the oil of any country, especially an oil producing country such as Niger, is inherently notable. I don't have to google to know that. Dr.K. logos 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A few templates are available to instruct editors to hold off on deleting articles, with the inclusion of {{hangon}}, {{underconstruction}}, and {{inuse}}. A properly-formed explanation on the talk page of an article nominated for speedy deletion will convince an administrator to wait and not delete. The speed of the nomination, IMHO, does not exactly matter, as an article should be introduced into the article namespace with already enough information to keep it afloat awhile. Otherwise, userfication is always an option. ←Signed:→Mr. E. Sánchez ^{Get to know me!} / _{Talk to me!}←at≈:→ 20:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article stub states pretty clearly that the subject is the state-run petroleum marketing company of the nation of Niger, which is a pretty obvious assertion of notability. A7 was rightly refused, although the remarks on ESanchez013's talk page aren't exactly WP:CIVIL. A Google search, once you wade past the business directory stuff, includes papers on SONIDEP from the World Bank, IMF and WTO, so I'd say it's safe to say there are reliable sources for this article. Rklear (talk) 21:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as above. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Clearly notable state-owned petroleum distribution company of Niger. Documented in sources, several of which I have now added to the article. Cool3 (talk) 22:05, 27 February 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. Ty 10:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Molly Emmons

Delete artist biography sourced solely to her own webpage. No evidence of the "significant coverage" in third party reliable sources that is required to reach WP:N. If every photographer, writer, or such whose works appear in a few publications (once each perhaps) were notable, prolific letter writers to the editor, advertisers and their art designers, and heaven-knows-who-else would be "notable". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I declined the speedy because there were asserions of notability but I've been unable to find evidence of significant coverage of *this* Molly. Ghits are false positives and no evidence of notability. StarM 04:04, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks to be self written with only the artist's webpage as the main source. I think this is a case of self promotion, also "... will graduate in 2009", speaks alot. Artypants, ^Babble 16:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails to establish notability with reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 20:55, 2 March 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. The fact that she did nothing to earn her notability does not mean we have to ignore it. yandman 16:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll

Delete notability is not inherited even from the "wrong side of the bed". Her claims to fame: being a king's illegitimate daughter, marrying an earl, and reproducing. Any idea what she actually did seems sufficiently unnoteworthy to be in her biography. Since she has no independent notability, WP should not have an article on her. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These claims make her notable enough for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to William Hay, 18th Earl of Erroll. Google Books and Google Scholar between them turn up one source for "Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll", and that is a marriage registry--a primary, not secondary source. Her illegitimacy, marriage and children are already mentioned in her husband's article, and they appear to be the main facts of her life. No evidence now for a separate article on her and, if any ever turns up, the redirect can be turned into an article again. Rklear (talk) 22:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It wasn't exactly hard to find two reliable secondary sources, which I have added. Anna Rundell (talk) 23:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This just an article that requires loving care, aka information to remove the stub template. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 01:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment After a little searching, I have found a lot of information about her, and all the more reason to keep this article. --♪♫The New Mikemoral^talk_contribs 00:01, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If she's a countess, that's notable enough for me. JRP (talk) 04:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've found and added additional sources and info about her. --Zeborah (talk) 02:12, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Needs work from someone who knows more about this subject than I do, but if she's good enough for the Earl of Erroll, she's good enough for me. 7triton7 (talk) 06:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-referenced and notable. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although this is by no means the least notable of its type, Wikipedia has far too many articles on married people about whom nothing is known except their birth, marriage, and children, all of which is already covered in their spouse's articles. No print encyclopedia would use space for people about whom so little is known; while Wikipedia can set that bar somewhat lower because disk storage for them is essentially costless, they are a nuisance to the reader -- you click on the link and discover absolutely nothing new. Jameslwoodward (talk) 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further thought. One of the comments above says, "If she's a Countess, that's notable enough for me." Well, first, she wasn't a Countess in her own right, she was the wife of an Earl. But even if she were a Countess, that doesn't guarantee a Wikipedia article. Of the 24 Earls and Countesses of Errol, only 9 have their own articles. Any of us could create articles for the remaining 15 that had the same information as this one -- birth, marriage, death, parents and children's names. But if what you want is genealogy, go to genealogics.org. Wikipedia is not a genealogy reference, it's intended to fill in the bare bones and tell us more about a person, if, and only if, more is known. To suggest that this article is worth keeping is to suggest that we need to create tens of thousands of new articles on nobility and their spouses.Jameslwoodward (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: a) If she hadn't married the earl then her father would have given her a rank in her own right as he did for the rest of her brothers and sisters. b) Just as "Other things exist so this should too" is an invalid argument, so is "Other things don't exist so this shouldn't either". For a start, I've been thinking of creating articles for some of those earls and countesses (y'know, in my infinite spare time) based on information I've discovered while researching this. c) As for Wikipedia being meant to "tell us more about a person", yes: that's why I added the information about her portrait and about the mementoes of her father she kept. It's not much, I agree, but it is more than birth/death/marriage. It would be odd to include those things in her husband's article, and they are things that would interest someone wanting to know more about her. --Zeborah (talk) 21:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to fail WP:BIO. There are thousands of similar nobles, most of whom just happened to be born to the right person at the right time. Stifle (talk) 16:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment that "she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject". I added one such book to the article. Anna Rundell (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as easily passing WP:BIO. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:05, 3 March 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. With a special note of congratulation to User:Colonel Warden for his excellent cleanup work Fritzpoll (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Natural hoof care

Interesting essay, but unfortunately non-encyclopedic. Beagel (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC) Beagel (talk) 18:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I think I tried to speedy this at some point as copyvio, then a sysop stubbed it and moved it. It was written as a fluff piece to advertise a book by the author that was graced by the only link on there. It's an unsalvageable essay at best, advert at worst. If my search was any indication, the guy that wrote this is the only source for the content anyway. §FreeRangeFrog 00:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I received a message on my talk page from User:A Nobody about the work that was done on this article, and it's a heck of a lot different now. I certainly have no problem changing my vote based on this. I urge the other editors to also reconsider. Kudos to the rescuers. The best outcome of an AfD is always a keep! §FreeRangeFrog 04:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as self-promo along with Jaime Jackson as self-promotor. Tonywalton ^Talk 01:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following work done by A Nobody. I agree with FreeRangeFrog wholeheartedly. Tonywalton ^Talk 08:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is much excellent material here and so I have stubbed the article with a view to building it back up in accordance with our usual style. Classical authors such as Xenophon considered this topic to be of great importance and so it is prima facie encyclopaedic. As the article has been rewritten, the comments above are obsolete. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. Those unhappy with references to a particular farrier are welcome to provide their own. I suppose that some parts of the original, removed, content may be reused as well. NVO (talk) 17:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Colonel Warden's trimming is an improvement, but now the article is nothing more than just a quote from an ancient Greek text. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect to either Barefoot horses or Jaime Jackson. There's not enough here for a standalone article. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 05:07, 2 March 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kurdish genocide (WWI)

The article is about a non-event. Its existence is claimed in only one source - a source that deliberately distorts other sources in order to give an appearance of reality to the claim. The term "genocide" should not be allowed to be misused in this way. A google search for Kurdish genocide and WW1 results in no hits except for this Wikipedia article. See the article's talk page for more reasons. Meowy 16:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I've placed a note about the proposed deletion on the page of the editor who created the article. Meowy 16:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed. That article should be deleted. -- Mttll (talk) 16:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed as well, the only source is not reliable. Sardur (talk) 18:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Poorly-sourced fringe theory. Also, there's a relevant discussion going on at Talk:Human_rights_of_Kurdish_people_in_Turkey#Request_for_Comment:_genocide_of_Kurds.3F if anyone's interested. Graymornings_(talk) 18:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The entire article relies on one source. The existing source reads more like a far fetched, fringe hypothesis than a piece of academic research. For several months now nobody was able to support this article with additional sources of any nature.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 02:01, 28 February 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:31, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahand & Sabalan Tower

From what little I could find in Google, these appear to be office buildings in Tehran. Gnews and gsearch for either building turns up enough to show that they exist, but nothing showing notability. However, I'm sure that language and transcription issues are messing with my search, so I'm bringing this to a wider audience than PROD. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: no notability asserted, nothing I could find in the usual places. Despite what certain bits of the mass-media seem to believe existence is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for passing WP:N. Ironholds (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, doesn't assert, much less prove, notability. ~EdGl (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No indication of notability. FlyingToaster 18:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note that List of tallest buildings and structures in Iran have these as separate structures. Their height indicates they may be notable, but I'm not seeing the sources. However, we should be aware of [[WP:BIAS] as sources are very likely to be non-English.

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 (G4) by Jclemens. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vettaikkaaran (2009 film)

Article has already been deleted twice at AfD (here on 18 December 2008 and again on 22 December), then prodded and speedied at least another five times (see logs for Vettaikaran, Vettaikaran (2009 film), Vettaikaaran and Vettaikkaaran (2009 film)). The concerns raised in previous discussions are still present in this latest incarnation of the article; the film is still in the pre-production stages and therefore explicitly fails WP:NFF. No prejudice against having an article when reliable sources indicate that filming has already begun and notability is established, but the article remains premature at this time. PC78 (talk) 16:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 16:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 There are no changes in the article that address the reasons for which the material was deleted in the first place. No need to debate this any further, tagged as a speedy candidate. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 18:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles" (from WP:NFF. This has not commenced filming according to the article, so I think that's clear enough. Cool3 (talk) 19:14, 27 February 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 redirect to Best selling albums in 2009. MBisanz ^talk 22:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best selling music in 2009

Yet another article based on the United World Chart, a chart listed on WP:BADCHARTS. By the creator of Best selling albums in 2009, which is going down in flames at AFD, and essentially a copy of that article, this seems to be an effort to defy that deletion discussion. Kind of a reposting 10 minutes prior to deletion. For those that are unaware, www.mediatraffic.de is the United World Chart. —Kww(talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as pure vandalism. I'm starting the AFD primarily to gain consensus that the creation of this article at this time qualifies.—Kww(talk) 16:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, vandalism. - eo (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is kind of pushing the definition of vandalism, I have to say. I would suggest simply redirecting this article to Best selling albums in 2009 as a duplicate article; then abiding by the decision of that AfD. Future creations of this can therefore be comfortably speedied as G4 without controversy. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per Mazca. Legitimate search term. Capitalistroadster (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy redirect to Best selling albums in 2009 as a duplicate of the soon-to-be-deleted article. Then once the target is gone, CSD G8 will apply. B.Wind (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Clear intent to make us run around in circles deleting this. WP:BADCHART with no official authority at all. Nate • (chatter) 05:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I hear United World Chart? Yes? Then I say Delete. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: WP:BADCHARTS. JamesBurns (talk) 06:17, 1 March 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Cool Day in August

No notability asserted, information in the article is unverifiable. IMDb contains no entry on the film (see results of IMDb search for A Cool Day in August) nor a director named "Christopher Rizzo". The article claims "Peter Lipera" and "Kaitlin Moorehead" are the film's stars but neither one of these actors has an IMDb profile to verify connection to the film ([10], [11]). An extensive Google search brings up mostly Wikipedia mirror sites that list the information from this article as well as Dogme 95 article, where this film is first mentioned and which is the only article on the project that links back to it. Overall, there is a complete lack of sources to prove the film satisfies any of the criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (films). No prejudice towards recreation if reliable sources can be found that establish notability. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice in agreement with the nom. I have also done a diligent search and have found WP:V of the film but nothing that shows anything past its simple existance. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources -- Whpq (talk) 21:13, 2 March 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. Per User:Arakunem Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mis-confusion

See WP:MADEUP Ironholds (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even the Urban Dictionary link cited in the article says the term has not been defined yet. That's about as WP:MADEUP as it gets! Arakunem^Talk 16:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless. Punkmorten (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is an unsourced dictionary definition of a neologism, and as such, it is not suitable for Wikipedia. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:14, 28 February 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. The general consensus here seems to be against deleting the article. There are a good number of people calling for a redirect or a merge as well; this does not need to be decided at AfD, but can be discussed on the article's talk page. I'd also strongly recommend continual monitoring of this article to ensure it remains neutral and well-referenced according to BLP guidelines. For those who are in favor of this article being deleted, I'd suggest waiting a few months to see if the media coverage does die down, which (as Iridescent implied in the nomination) would lend a bit more credence to the WP:BLP1E arguement. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:27, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gail Trimble

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

I'm going to make myself unpopular by nominating this one now – I can see a lot of people are working on it – but this seems to me to be exactly the kind of biography of a living person Wikipedia should not be hosting. This is an absolute textbook example of a person notable for one event, with recentism providing an inflated dose of "notability". Yes, she is the highest ever scorer on a particular quiz show; but every points-based quiz show ever has a highest scorer. She has no apparent other notable achievements (or at least, none that have been sourced), and while she obviously is very bright and may well go on to be a leading academic, she is not one yet.

Most of the arguments made on the talk page in favor of keeping this article seem to be variations of "received a lot of media coverage". Yes, this can sometimes be a pointer towards notability, but it does not mean notability. If I'm permitted to violate WP:CRYSTAL myself for a moment, it seems unlikely she will be receiving any coverage in a month's, let alone a year's, time, unless she has some other achievement.

There's also a do-no-harm issue here. The article itself states that the subject is uncomfortable with media coverage, and this is by no stretch a case where the subject is of such importance that they need to be covered regardless of their wishes. At the time I write this, almost 50% of the article is occupied by a "Cultural impact" section. Quite aside from the dubiousness of a "cultural impact" section on someone who has only been even marginally famous for three days, this section is basically a laundry-list of assorted personal attacks on her which have been made by various media figures, and discussion of said attacks.

I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise, but I don't see how this article is ever going to be viable unless and until she has some other significant achievement to her credit, and believe it needs to go back to being the redirect to University Challenge it began as. Flames to the usual place, please. – iridescent 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom that this person is not notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Her media coverage is entirely about one event and not one that is worthy of an biography in an encyclopedia. FloNight ♥♥♥ 15:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete for reasons specified above. Wikipedia is not about pop culture opr 15 minutes of fame. Jezhotwells (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per well-detailed above argument. WP:BLP1E, specifically. Adam Zel (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. If she were simply and solely the captain of a team which won a TV programme, she would not be sufficiently notable for an article, in my view. But that is not the case. Her success in the programme has led to massive - and I use that word quite advisedly - media interest in the UK, which has focussed on the extent of her dominance of that programme and, even more, on the hostile reaction that there has been to her success in some areas of society (blogs etc.) - and what that means for British society. She has been claimed by a columnist of a serious national newspaper as being "more divisive than anyone since Thatcher" - quite a claim, one which justifies the need to publish information about her that people can look into. The relationship between the way in which she is being treated to the way in which the contrasting figure of Jade Goody is being treated has been seized on by numerous commentators, such as Melanie Phillips, as indicating something fundamental about British society. She is, at the moment, a very important figure in discussions about UK society, and people have a right to expect that WP will provide neutral and unbiased information about her. "The subject is uncomfortable with media coverage..." Not so - she's obviously and unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the nature and quality of some of the media coverage, but the fact that she has appeared on national Breakfast TV, given other media interviews, had photos of her as a child published in the local press, and even before her success appeared in university publicity, suggests she's not opposed to publicity per se, just bad and irresponsible publicity - which is not in any way what this article does. "Wikipedia is not about pop culture..." Why on earth not? - it can cover high culture and pop culture more than adequately. And perhaps anyone who thinks she's not notable could try hitting the "random article" button to see how many articles it will take before hitting an article with 6000 hits in a year, let alone in 4 days which is what this article has had. Like it or not, there is a demand for information about her, and there is no good reason why WP should not meet that demand. Seriously, if she was in the US not the UK would anyone dare propose deleting the article? Of course not. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question- Would you say the coverage has been similar to that of Ken Jennings? If it is, then Im ight be persuaded to change my response to just a straightforward Keep. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite some article there! - never having heard of Ken Jennings before, I've no idea about the extent of press coverage in that case - but what interests me about Trimble is not so much her ability to answer quiz questions (though that is, perhaps, almost unprecedented) but on the cultural impact she has had, and the questions that is raising in the UK. If we were being more than usually pedantic, I could support renaming the article to "Cultural impact of Gail Trimble's appearances on University Challenge 2009" - but that would be a bit silly, in my view. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And do you honestly believe, too, that in a week, two weeks time, the media interest will still be there? Achromatic (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Who knows? Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline you linked to - 'Wikipedia is not a crystal ball' - is exactly why we shouldn't have this article. Ms. Trimble is not notable yet. She may become so in the future, but that's a judgement to be made with the benefit of hindsight and historical perspective; and we can't keep this article on the presumption that she might become notable, as that's what WP:CRYSTAL is meant to prevent. If you're not certain that she'll still be a recognised name next week, then we shouldn't have this article. Robofish (talk) 02:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One week down - still newsworthy. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~and rename/rewrite~~- While yes, there are BLP1E issues here, I think that the event is notable enough, as demonstrated by the numerous sources cited in the article, that it should be covered here. However I think it should be named and re-written to cover things based on the events, not the person. Umbralcorax (talk) 16:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my vote to just a straight keep. I see no reason, with the mass of coverage she's getting, that deletion should occur. She's just too notable, outside of the show, to be deleted. I think the comparison to Ken Jennings is apt. Umbralcorax (talk) 04:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also of interest to this deletion discussion(?): Her mention in the Nuts (magazine) article. --Ali'i 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed it - she is no more notable than anybody else who declined such an offer. The criticism section was added by an IP yesterday and is a big load of unsourced bollocks anyway. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 16:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: Someone might want to have a run through Category:Jeopardy! contestants to check for other similar cases (only about 30 articles or so). For instance, I'd say on par (or even less so) with this article is someone like Larissa Kelly. Mahalo. --Ali'i 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that article I'd warn strongly against this being considered a similar case. Trimble's notability is not as a one-off quiz show contestant - it is as a quiz show contestant whose success has led to very widespread high profile coverage across the UK, and where this has snowballed to the extent that the nature of that coverage itself has been the subject of comment and debate by highly regarded national media figures (and even Jonathan Ross!) Ghmyrtle (talk) 08:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 17:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As above, this is similar to Ken Jennings. There is more information here than would reasonably be included in another article. If the article were nothing more than just a description of the show, it would be one thing, but independent reliable sources have covered her in a broader context (for example the sources referenced in the background section). For people interested in this issue from a policy perspective, there is also currently an ongoing debate on WP:ONEVENT at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Cool3 (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jennings was on multiple, multiple shows (in line to co-host another), is the focus of a board game, gained commercial endoresments, and is an author of 2 books and a columnist. Trimble ain't Jennings. (Yet?) Fairly absurd to compare the two at this point. --Ali'i 19:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly Jennings is far more notable now, but take a look at an older version of the article. For example [12]. There was a time when Jennings had even less coverage than Trimble does, that's the point I was really making. Game show winners can certainly be notable. Cool3 (talk) 20:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So because Jennings had an article in 2004 (before we had any kind of biographies of living people policy, by the way), we should have an article on Trimble in 2009? That argument is fail. --Ali'i 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not the argument I was making. Argument is: major winners of game shows who attract significant media attention are notable. What the BLP policy says is:"Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them". Do dozens of mentions in the most-read publications in Britain make someone "low-profile"? I rather doubt it. Furthermore, she is rapidly gaining significance beyond the "one event" that people may talk about. From the Financial Times, "Gail Trimble, the extraordinarily knowledgeable captain of the Corpus Christi (Oxford) team which won the latest run of University Challenge, a BBC quiz show, has stimulated a series of debates" [13]. "Stimulated a series of debates", sounds to me like an indication of significance and more than just a low-profile person who happened to make it into the news. Cool3 (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - While I believe this will serve as a useful redirect to University Challenge (which is why I created it on Monday), I don't believe there is any justification for a full article. She is known for one event and that event can briefly be mentioned in the University Challenge article. If she should become more notable in the future (say as a television presenter or even Paxman's replacement should he ever step down as University Challenge host) then she can have her own biography. But somehow I doubt that's going to happen. TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge into University Challenge 2009. The media response to Gail Trimble is a notable aspect of the 2009 series – but she isn't independently notable, and a biographical article about her will be impossible to keep up to date without violation of privacy. EALacey (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Even better. TheRetroGuy (talk) 20:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I think the announcement of Gail Trimble's engagement (now mentioned in the article) is a good indication of why we shouldn't be using a biography to cover her University Challenge performance. The engagement made the Times because she's still enjoying her fortnight of fame, but we've no reason to believe that her activities will receive similar publicity in future, and any current information about her personal life or academic plans could be very misleading a few years from now if we lack the ability to update it. If this discussion ends with "Keep" or "No consensus", I think we should at least treat the title "Gail Trimble" as shorthand for "Performance of Gail Trimble in University Challenge 2009", and avoid extraneous information. EALacey (talk) 19:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. has received much attention in lots of different media. Jacob Lundberg (talk) 20:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only reliable sources for anything connected with Ms Trimble are to do with the fact that she did very well on a quiz program. There are no reliable secondary sources for her biographical details. This is the very definition of People notable only for one event, and this article is paradigmatic for when an individual plays a major role in a minor event. In this case, it is not generally appropriate to have an article on both the person and the event. Textbook case. Anna Rundell (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— Anna Rundell (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonel Warden (talk • contribs) 08:19, 1 March 2009

And even if that were true, which it is not, how would that affect the validity of the argument? Anna Rundell (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is customary practise to place the {{spa}} tag against new accounts in these discussions, owing to natural concern about ballot stuffing. You explained elsewhere that you are a veteran editor using a new account to conceal your real identity. That seems fair enough but you might as well get this out in the open as others may be suspicious. Colonel Warden (talk) 16:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it could also be a case of "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved". I'd say this is probably true here. (full disclosure: I recently wrote most of the text at WP:BIO1E) Cool3 (talk) 01:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? A brief media flurry makes this person more famous than the whole of the previous 47 years of the show? Anna Rundell (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The show's not the event here, the one event would be the current season. Cool3 (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The many references assert verifiable notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Reference justify it. Me677 (talk) 01:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems a textbook case of WP:BLP1E to me. Look at the dates on the references. When they are separated by more than 36 days I might reconsider. Kevin (talk) 03:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The multiple references from reliable sources tend to support notability. Maybe she will be commonly remembered in the future (compare Ken Jennings) and maybe she won't, but it would seem to make more sense to leave the article for now, while she is still in the public eye, and then if she is largely forgotten in the future, submit the article for deletion then. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the game article for now. If she develops independent notability, then this can be restored. This is an example where we really need more distance from the event to know how it should be considered in light of our policies. JRP (talk) 04:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and recreate as a redirect with the salient points merged into University Challenge 2009. There is no notability independent of the quiz programme; as others have said, this may change with time but we are dealing with now. Nancy ^talk 06:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, merge if need be. I'm in agreement with the nominator. "Cultural impact"? That utterly smacks of OR and hyperbole. I have serious doubts that in a week's time, she'll have anywhere near the same media interest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 06:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This girl is special - she deserves a Wiki page. It will expand further info about Uni Challenge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.0.142.207 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear case of WP:ONEEVENT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:BLP1E is being misunderstood and misapplied. Her notability does not arise from having been arbitrarily involved in a notable event. Her position is that of an outstanding performer and her notability is directly due to her own talents and deeds. She is thus comparable to an Olympic gold medalist or other major contest winner. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you really saying that appearing on University Challenge is equivalent to competing in the Olympics? Well, it isn't, I can tell you —72.255.39.39 (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Eddie the Eagle, Eric the Eel, Jamaican Bobsled Team, etc. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as you have to know things to be successful, rather than getting loads of money plowed into a sport that no-one really cares about. Keep the article, no different as per an Olympic athelete who competes at one games and wins one medal, or, of course, the number of non-notable nobodies who've been in reality shows who have their own articles. Lugnuts (talk) 14:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into University Challenge. Clear case of WP:BLP1E, and if she later becomes notable for some other work, the article can be created then. Jonobennett (talk) 15:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For everyone citing some version of, she is only notable for one event, the press coverage of her is continuing. One event is more about a flurry of press coverage on one or two days after something happens, but if anything the coverage of her is expanding, and it certainly asserts notability. The Guardian called her "a media sensation" this morning [14]. The Times ran a piece on her today [15]. A writer in the Telegraph remarked "I'm sure everyone is by now familiar with Corpus Christi College and their all-conquering captain Gail Trimble" [16]. Certainly this in an indication of notability, and the fact that the coverage didn't stop when the show stopped is an indication that she's bigger than just one event, becoming in fact, something of a cultural phenomenon. Cool3 (talk) 16:34, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cool3 hit the nail on the head. I don't see a difference between her article and this article on the main page, which is essentially "one event". Lugnuts (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that this article is a BLP, and so is rightly held to higher inclusion standards than articles on other subjects. (That one in particular is a terrible example, as it's a widely-reported air disaster in which 9 people died and hundreds were injured - obviously rather more significant than a contestant who won a game show, I would have thought.) Robofish (talk) 02:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nope. It is much too soon to declare her a person of note who has accomplishments that warrant a permanent entry in an encyclopedia. Today we know that she is someone that is attracting the attention of the media for her current activities. People that want to read about her can look at newspaper, magazine articles, or websites. Newspapers and magazines are the appropriate place for people to find information about her because of her current notoriety. Sometime down the road, she may have the accomplishments that are typically needed for an encyclopedia entry. Until that time, information about her is best placed in an article about University Challenge. Worst case scenario, lowering our standards to include an entry on her has the potential of causing problems for her in real life. There is a significant risk that the article will be a place for false information to be provided to the reader. The most likely scenario is that the article will grow stale with information that does not reflect her ongoing life accomplishments because they will never be cover in the media after her 15 minutes of fame passes. FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She's also starting to appear in mentions, merely as a celebrity in articles about other things, showing that her celebrity is more pervasive. For example, see [17], an article in the Times that begins "In a week dedicated to celebrating the nimble-witted Gail Trimble" and then continues about other topics. When other sources make passing reference to a person, expecting everyone to know who it is, that's a pretty excellent indication of notability. Cool3 (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of this still relates to her appearance on the television show. Loads of chatter about it, yes. Because it was a popular show, it is getting more media coverage than usual. But that does not change the fact that she is known for this single event. The reason that we should put material about her in University Challenge rather than a separate entry is not changed my many different media outlets repeating the same information. The encyclopedic quality information about her is still extremely thin and can be covered in a short paragraph. FloNight ♥♥♥ 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on two formal objections to a faulty application of BLP1E argument. (A) The person was involved not in a single event, but, rather, in a quite a long string of events. She appeared in public no less than a lead actor of a miniseries, and probably brought the tv barons far more cash. (B) BLP1E specifically says Where a person is mentioned by name in a Wikipedia article about a larger subject, but essentially remains a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Even if Trimble dislikes her publicity, she's not a low-profile individual anymore. NVO (talk) 17:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question if you don't mind answering (or someone else can, maybe), why do you think that a separate article is the best place to offer information to the reader about her? If her name is a redirect to University Challenge then the reader can find information about her there. Encyclopedic quality information about her is very thin and can best be presented in a single short paragraph. It is not a matter of a stub waiting for someone to do more research and expand the entry, rather with her short article we will be waiting for her to do something else notable so more content can be added. Can you see the difference between the two scenarios and why that in one case a short article is fine but in the other it is the recipe for trouble? FloNight ♥♥♥ 17:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage has gone way beyond her performance in University Challenge. She is now a celebrity, role model and hate figure. Much of the coverage now focusses upon the extent to which her excellence is condemned while the crude ignorance of reality TV stars is excused, so exemplifying the dumbing down of modern culture. You might think that Wikipedia would have a special place for lovers of knowledge but we have this attack here too. Tsk. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The media coverage is still limited in scope because it is covering a person known for a single event. The larger number of different media outlets covering her does not change the fact that there is a narrow range of content that can be added about her. While it expands the choice of references, the expanded number of media outlets covering her does not increase our ability to write a comprehensive article about her. Our inability to write an article that adequately portrays her life is the reason that WP:BLP1E exists. In these instances, a separate article is not needed to display the available content. And having an article based on the limited information does not capture the full essence of who the person really is so can be harmful to the person. The WP:BLP was written to recognize that special care needs to be taken to make sure we are displaying content about living people in a way that accurately reflects the person. If a person known for a single event, it is next to impossible to provide broad enough material to do justice to the topic. FloNight ♥♥♥ 21:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is already comprehensive, giving a well-sourced account of her education, her interests, her achievements, her performance in University Challenge and the intense recent interest in her. Now compare this with the hundreds of articles in the Category:Swimmers at the 2008 Summer Olympics such as Julia Beckett. Singling out a highly notable person to be humiliated by deleting her article while leaving thousands of stubby articles about numerous minor sportsmen and women is not justice. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that argument is called "Other stuff exists". Anna Rundell (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

While your argument is called WP:VAGUEWAVE. If you read WP:OSE, you will find that it explains that "When used properly, a logical rationalization of 'Other Stuff Exists' may be used in a perfectly valid manner in discussions of what articles to create, delete, or retain.". I am using this properly by showing that Wikipedia systematically maintains stubby articles on outstanding performers or even indifferent performers - those who simply qualified for a notable event. We have many thousands of such articles and these clearly establish a relevant precedent per WP:OSE: "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you somehow forgot to quote you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on what other articles do or do not exist from the same place. Anyway, since you're shifting your ground from "justice" to an alleged previously existing consensus, you also failed to note that when you describe performers who "qualified for a notable event", that event was the Olympics, for which there is a specific consensus at WP:ATH. Your argument that there is a consensus would only work if you maintain that University Challenge is covered by "the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships". It doesn't say "notable". And UC clearly isn't either of those two things. Now let's just drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Anna Rundell (talk) 12:04, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She captained the winning team in the final with a performance better than any in the competition's 50 odd years. There is no higher level in this sport. We can also consider the guidance of WP:ENTERTAINER which covers television personalities who have a "significant cult following" and make a "unique...contribution". She qualifies on multiple counts as well as the abundant evidence of numerous independent sources per WP:N. The idea that sundry obscure synchronised swimmers, rope-climbers and horse-riders are more worthy of coverage here is absurd so trying to apply this as a rigid rule fails WP:BURO. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:51, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Flonight: "why do you think that a separate article is the best place to offer information to the reader about her" - why not, may I wonder in return? Information on a person is normally accessed through an article on this person... unless there's really not much to say apart from their mention in a single event per BLP1E. Thus wikipedia presents information on Daniel Radcliffe in his own bio and not in Harry Potter (film series). It's just good sense: if a section on a person outgrows the mother event/series (in case of Trimble it did), there's no point keeping it there - it will reduce University Challenge to a coatrack for Trimble. NVO (talk) 11:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - textbook WP:BLP1E - Alison ^❤ 18:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I was going to vote delete first, but several foreign news sources write about her. Their readers probably do not even watch University Challenge, so she is independently notable. Note also that this debate was linked from Wikipedia review, whose readers are rather pro-deletion on BLP articles. --Apoc2400 (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia Review. Mike R (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - if it's one event, just rename to relate to the event. That's what happens to coatracks. Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - blatant WP:BLP1E. I can understand the desire to have an article on someone like Trimble while she was briefly in the news, but it's abundantly clear already that she has no lasting notability - we're talking about someone here who was 'famous' for a week at most. Thanks to iridescent for nominating the article; as I noted on the talk page, I was thinking of doing so myself, but didn't want to face controversy by doing it now. I'm glad someone was willing to do what needed to be done and take responsibility for it. Robofish (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My preference would be for either Redirect or Rename to event, but I'd take Keep over Delete, if those were my only two choices. 7triton7 (talk) 06:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep. I think her notability is more than just a quiz show winner as she has sparked a debate of the distrust many Britons have of intellectual achievement, especially in a women. I think this will run for a while and I particularly value a WP article that summarizes what is publicly known about her with sources cited, rather than media rumour. As per previous comments, there are many less notable eg sports winners with bio stubs. Billlion (talk) 10:27, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per 1 event, flo, nom, etc. Verbal chat 13:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Parody. Gail Trimble is a phenomenon of semi-popular culture. Anything worthy of passing notice as an item of not-yet-popular culture is worthy of Wikipedia. —Moulton 13:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Well today we now have the startling revelation that one of her teammates was apparently NOT a student (shock! horror!) [18] and that an investigation is under way [19] (no article on him please). The upshot of this being that I can see the sense in having an article on the current series which should reference both these events (Trimble and what will no doubt become known as "Studentgate") and as I stated somewhere above, Gail Trimble should be redirected there. TheRetroGuy (talk) 13:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - you mean: no article on Sam Kay please ?. . . Rcawsey (talk) 20:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per precedent of Ken Jennings, Frank Spangenberg, Eddie Timanus, Brad Rutter, etc. Yes, I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason, but we seem to have an informal standard for gameshow biographies akin to WP:ATHLETE; perhaps we should create WP:GAMESHOW. Besides, she meets WP:BIO by virtue of substantial independent press coverage. If TheRetroGuy is right, and this turns into a scandal, we can address that issue then. THF (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would seem to be enough sources and information, including a brief biography, to make covering it all in the Challenge 2009 article unwieldy. There's more prose in this article than there is in University Challenge 2009. Much of the coverage regarding misogyny has gone beyond the specifics of the competition. Also, she passes WP:N and therefore merits her own article. bridies (talk) 15:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, another one event famous for sive minutes person. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a news service. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename Seems one-eventy at first glance, but the media response to her seems notable, even if she herself isn't. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly meets notability standards as a TV performer. Johnbod (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or keep There are at least two articles into which this material could be merged: University Challenge 2009 and Celebrity culture (itself in a fairly dire state, it has to be said). If not merged, then I would keep it. I know we all have some reluctance (and some WP policy) that discourages 'five minutes of fame' from cluttering up the servers, but we also would like this to be the place that, when people want to ask "who was...?", no matter how obscure the person is or was, they might find a reliable answer. Personally I make it my mission to create and improve biographies of obscure but notable people :-) However, considering WP's "If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted", then, notwithstanding attempts to turn Trimble into a representation of debate about contemporary British culture, I would have thought she really remains at this point tied to just the one event - the winning of the 2009 Challenge. All commentary remains contingent on that. As others have said, the time may come when she warrants her own entry, and that will be fine. Despite all that, I would not support a delete, only redirect / merge. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge. Good grief... she was part of a team, yet other team members are not notable? All the media attention is about peoples perceptions of this person and the abuse given due to being labelled a "swot" etc. How on earth does that make her notable for more than one event? Newspaper articles aren't about her; they are about peoples reactions towards her... the only way press attention will keep on will be the fact there's currently an investigation into the eligibility of one of the team members; the hand wringing articles will soon stop. Some people really need hitting with a cluestick. Minkythecat (talk) 10:55, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Neutral' Apparently violates BLP1E as that guideline is written. A merge to University Challenge 2009 would be in order. However, I can think of an awful lot of other articles that could be deleted under BLP1E, which suggests that the guideline is flawed. Every reality show contestant, for starters. Ken Jennings would have failed under current standards at the time of his Jeopardy victories (although he doesn't violate BLP1E anymore, with book deals and the like). Joe the Plumber almost got deleted as a BLP1E. Charles van Doren might have violated BLP1E if Wikipedia had existed during the quiz show scandals of the 1950's. And so on. Admittedly Gail Trimble isn't as notable as these people. Wkdewey (talk) 14:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]
- Merge to University Challenge 2009. I misread the guidelines, there is a qualification that it applies to "low-profile" people (which Trimble is, and those other people are not). That's a better standard than only considering whether the person is only notable for one event. Wkdewey (talk) 18:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC) just can't make up my mind here, no vote. Wkdewey (talk) 04:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to all the above "!votes" - Trimble's team have been disqualified from the competition and Manchester are now the winners. I don't think this affects the notability as such, but the guys above may want to reconsider their votes. D.M.N. (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... as one of those who !voted 'Delete' above, I think this clearly does affect the notability issue (after all, a Univesity Challenge winning team being stripped of their title is a rare and notable event). However, I'm still not convinced of the need for an article on Trimble herself, due to the BLP1E issues. Perhaps the best solution would be to have an article on 'Corpus Christi college University Challenge team 2009', rather than any individual team member in particular. Robofish (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My Keep above now reinforced by the latest news. Trimble's tragic status as the quiz queen who never was will surely ensure her immortality. Being disqualified after winning is much more notable than merely winning, which happens every year. Johnbod (talk) 18:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well all it shows is that she is still only notable for that one event. Being disqualified is still part of the gameshow--DFS454 (talk) 20:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree that this is a person notable for one event, and only as part of a larger team. This article should definately be removed but i see no harm in some of the information being incorperated into the University Challenge 2008 article. TSMonk (talk) 19:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to voters and to people who actually bother discussing. Perhaps you should consider Trimble's notability in relation to that of Ray Joseph Cormier, which is also up for deletion on similar grounds. If Trimble isn't sufficiently notable then Cormier, who seems to have less reason for an article, is probably not either; conversely, if Cormier is notable enough for an article, then it seems that Trimble must be too. Clinkophonist (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Cormier's "keep" decision relied on the fact that coverage from varied geographical sources over a matter of years implied continued coverage. This AFD, on the other hand, is a specific question of BLP1E. The two aren't comparable. – iridescent 20:02, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I'm counting at least 4 events for which Trimble has been covered:

Trimlbe wins University Challenge
Trimble becomes a "media sensation" and sparks debate
Trimble gets engaged (not as big, but made the papers)
Trimble's team is disqualified

Now, if someone has been involved in four events, how can criteria for people involved in one event apply?

I have a suggestion that might sound like a compromise here. Instead of having a separate article on Gail Trimble, why not, in addition to the article on University Challenge, have a separate article entitled something like "Notable Events from the History of University Challenge" or "Notable Contestants from University Challenge"? The BBC 2 series "University Challenge is quite a popular programme, and arguably, deserves more than one article (other popular television programmes often get more than one article in Wikipedia). If we began this article, we could include the story of Gail Trimble and, more generally, the story of what happened to Corpus Christi. If you have followed the news on Radio Four since 1 March, you will know that Price Waterhouse confirmed that Sam Kay was not actually a student at the time of the final; it was announced on the Radio Four news tonight (March 2 2009) that Corpus Christi had been stripped of their title as 2009 winners. A sad story I know, but given I cannot remember a team being stripped of their title before, perhaps this could be reported in such an article. On a more positive note for Corpus Christi College, the same article could also report Gail Trimble's remarkable polymathy, and note that she has been described as "The Human Google". There are probably many other episodes of "University Challenge" which - subject, I know, to discussion, could go here. So, my suggestion is that rather than to delete the article on Gail Trimble altogether, we create the new article which I suggested earlier and put the information on Gail Trimble in there. This is only my humble suggestion - sorry if I sound as if I am sitting on the fence there, but then as some once said, from up there one gets a good view! ACEOREVIVED (talk) 21:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - I think this idea could work. There's bound to be other notable events in University Challenge's history, and probably some people who appeared on the show who've gone on to achieve notability. It's definitely worth investigating anyway. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to University Challenge 2009 for now, as most of the article is about that. There seems to be enough about Gail Trimble covered in secondary sources for a section in this article, but not much more. If she continues getting coverage (which is a possibility), we can split off the article again later. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, forget that. Gail Trimble was on the front cover of three newspapers today. Keep.
Merge and redirect to University Challenge 2009: what's supposed to go in that article, if not stuff like this? Gonzonoir (talk) 21:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep she is highly notable, with many refs to support this. 79.75.132.65 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable as a high performing individual. No doubt if she had released a song that soared to No. 25 in the charts or was a footballer who had wandered onto the pitch for 5 mins at the end of a forgettable League Two game, we would not be having this discussion. However, when your skill, talent and knowledge (not mere happenstance) has made you the talk of the UK, apparantely that is not quite as notable. Bizarre. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 22:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to University_Challenge_2009#Notable_events_and_press_coverage, recent events [20] have shifted the focus of this story away from the brilliant Gail Trimble. pablo_hablo. 22:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic WP:BLP1E. University Challenge 2009 is the place where she should be mentioned. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not to be repetatice but this is "a classic WP:BLP1E".Nrswanson (talk) 00:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one of many coming to Wikipedia to find more infomation about Trimble, I agree with the above poster that there is currently a real demand for such infomation, considering her current notability. Also, although it's just my opinion, I'd feel that this is more than just a nine-day wonder, but will become a part of pop culture in the future and should thus be documented. 129.67.159.0 (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)helle[reply]

Comment. For anyone who doesn't look at the direction the extensive news coverage is going, the story has now shifted into the international press. Whereas before most of the coverage was British, I've noticed a lot of international press now, including: The International Herald Tribune [21], which though it's about the team's disqualification only mentions Trimble by name. The story also spread to Reuters India [22], which again focussed its coverage on Trimble. A profile in Christian Today [23], Agence France-Presse [24], and finally over in Ireland, the Belfast Telegraph wrote today "Having committed one of pop's cardinal sins by being perceived as too clever, Franz Ferdinand are in danger of becoming the Gail Trimble of the music business," [25], showing that Trimble no longer even needs an introduction. Cool3 (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Also covered on ABC radio. Mark Hurd (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I am an American who has never visited the UK and live in Colorado. Yet, Gail Trimble is now known by people here, who had never before heard of either University Challenge or Corpus Christi college. As stated above, I only found out about her due to the continuing International coverage of the event and the title stripping fallout, but she is more than famous enough for a Wikipedia entry. I would argue that her case is very similar to Ken Jennings and even more recently Chesley Sullenberger and no one is calling for them to be deleted. Although even a few days ago she may have been a decent candidate for deletion, her fame has exponentially expanded and now is fully deserving of a wiki in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.8.142.227 (talk) 05:48, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has now moved well past the BLP1E concerns, is well referenced from diverse sources, and appears to clear the verifiability and notability thresholds. Some commenters above wonder if she'll be famous in the future—which is irrelevant as the standard is not fame (which is fleeting) but notability which is not temporary. - Dravecky (talk) 08:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. I personally am not sure, but this can be reviewed at a later date. To put this up for deletion now is to be rash in the same manner that you're accusing the page creators of being. We need editorial standards but there's no harm (it seems well written) in leaving this up for a bit longer. Yohan euan o4 (talk) 08:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. The media and public reaction to Trimble captaining the winning team has had far wider impact than the result itself, and it seems unlikely that this is the last we will hear or her. It would be foolish to lose the present content through pedantry, only to have to reconstruct it later. Nick Cooper (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not so much for captaining the winning team in university challenge but for provoking the referenced discussion this has caused re: 'clever women'. Paulleake (talk) 12:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notable and sourced. --Philip Stevens (talk) 12:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reduce and merge there is no encyclopedic content worthy of a stand alone article on this living person. Should she become notable for other events, an article can be started later. -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Notable,relevant and well sourced article. Uksam88 (talk) 18:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable due to exceptional performance, per the Jennings precedent. I admit as a College Bowl alumnus, who did play on TV the last time it was on (in 1987) and whose team lost due to a questionable ruling, I'm somewhat biased in her favor. Favour, as the Brits spell.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 3 March 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 Binyam_Mohamed#Release. Although there were those in this discussion that favoured retention on the basis of notability, very little reason was given. The sources in the article may be reliable for the purposes of establishing facts, but it has not been established that these sources confer notability. As such, the discussion tends towards deletion on the basis that notability is not inherited. In the interests of aiding our readers, I have set up a redirect to the appropriate section of the related article. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yvonne Bradley

WP:BIO./WP:ONEEVENT. There are six footnotes WP:LARDing the article, and none of them are significant independent coverage about the subject of the article; they are all about one of her barely-notable clients that quote her in passing, and the article is a strung-together collection of those quotes. According to the Mohamed article, Bradley wasn't even the client's lead lawyer: that was Clive Stafford Smith. I tried redirecting this to Binyam Mohamed, which this article is entirely redundant of, but an editor recreated the article. THF (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Yvonne Bradley is an extremely notable U.S. lawyer. During Bradley's visit to London in February 2009, she was interviewed in all the media including BBC News, Channel 4 News and The Guardian and met the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband, and, without exception, she distinguished herself as a formidable advocate. How THF can describe Binyam Mohamed as "one of her barely-notable clients" is laughable. Or is THF being serious?---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO. §FreeRangeFrog 00:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Really? The article has zero biographical facts other than her current job title. The cited "profile" is exactly two sentences long. That's not WP:N. THF (talk) 00:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well... Here she is front and center on the B-B-freakin-C, in an article about a topic that has garnered immense media attention. Are you telling me you don't think that's enough? That and the profile on the Guardian? If the issue is that biographical details on the article are not backed up by the given references, I'm sure they can be removed or trimmed down. A bio doesn't need to be fully biographical per se if the intent of the article is to document notability, which I think in this case is fair to say is well established. §FreeRangeFrog 00:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing in that cite about her, it's about her case. Merge with the existing article about the case rather than creating two redundant articles. THF (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what THF says, that cite gives the following biographical facts about her: "After six years as a regular officer in the judge-advocate general's branch of the US Air Force, Lt-Col Bradley worked for a further seven years for an organisation providing legal representation to death row inmates. She now has a law practice near Philadelphia, which she put on hold while pursuing Mr Mohamed's case. She volunteered following an appeal for military lawyers to take up the cases of Guantanamo detainees in 2005."---PJHaseldine (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I read that sentence when I wrote what I wrote, and I don't see anything there that contradicts my statement that the only sources mention her in passing. A sentence and a half with a couple of resume details doesn't equate to independent notability. THF (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By my count, that's three sentences. THF doesn't have a case!---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A sentence and a half about Bradley, a sentence and a half about the Mohamed case -- and that's before we get to the frivolous position that three sentences confers notability. There's no reason that sentence and a half (or three sentences) can't be in the Mohamed article. THF (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot do better than repeat what FreeRangeFrog said above: "Uh, it doesn't get any better than this for WP:BIO."---PJHaseldine (talk) 20:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the editors of Learned Hand would disagree. If it didn't violate WP:POINT, I'd nominate Yvonne Bradley for featured article status with your endorsement as the pinnacle of Wikipedia biographies.THF (talk)

Enough said, THF, let other Wikipedia editors now decide whether Yvonne Bradley is or is not notable enough to be included as a WP:BIO.---PJHaseldine (talk) 21:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. She is on the cusp and future cases and legal situations could easily put her into a clearly notable light, but as for right now it does not appear to be justified. JRP (talk) 04:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 20:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This lawyer is notable. Unionsoap (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - The Guantanamo tribunals are notable. She is not. This is a disturbing trend I'm seeing, where a lawyer is getting a wikipedia article for no other reason than taking part in a case that is worthy of a wikipedia article, as though notability were contagious. Just because her case was notable does not mean that she is. The article is also loaded with POV puffery. "Promises Kept" as a section? Yow. If you stripped out the POV stuff, there would be very little left. If you then took out her WP:ONEEVENT single notable case, there'd be nothing left but her name, rank ~~and serial number~~. TJRC (talk) 18:34, 2 March 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KREproxy

Non-notable software product. Author has self-published the software at sourceforge and appears to be using Wikipedia to attempt to promote that software. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Iam an author of this software but I dont want to promote me or my soft but I want to help people who writing Linux modules. I think that my work can help them, that is all. Sorry I dont know whether I should editing this page like this because I am new on wiki pages. Maybe someone can help in changing kREproxy wiki page content to adapt Wikipedia requirements. User:Marcintom —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment Your work may well be helpful and instructional, but it is not notable per Wikipedia standards. Your material might be better suited for Wikipedia's sister project, Wikiversity (but you will need to expand the instructional nature of the documentation), or it may be suitable for inclusion in other "how-to" sites, such as WikiHow. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable software, as per above. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable, self-promotion. Therblig (talk) 16:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom, and another plea to establish notability guidelines for software so we can point people like User:Marcintom above to them and avoid giving the impression that we're including or excluding these things based on ever-varying sets of rather vague criteria. §FreeRangeFrog 00:33, 28 February 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:56, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kodki

This article is written as a advert with no clear sources, it does not provide any relevant or useful information for this village — Preceding unsigned comment added by M3ash (talk • contribs) 2009/02/27 09:18:21

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Real villages are inherently notable, the horrible tone of the article is merely a cleanup issue. Edward321 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Like Edward321 said, "Real villages are inherently notable". Article I read may have been partly cleaned up; the tone did not seem extremely bad. Still need to know what "gaams" are. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did spend a few seconds cleaning up the article before you saw it. Edward321 (talk) 01:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Verified as a village. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all locations. We do not delete articles because they have bad content. We delete them if the topic is not appropriate. — Reinyday, 04:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
'Keep all villages (but not necessarily all locations.) 7triton7 (talk) 06:44, 1 March 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MoveYourWeb

This article fails WP:CORP. There are no reliable sources to show the notability of the company. An extensive search for any notable sources about either MoveYourWeb or Apalon have come up empty. The article is also written largely as an advertisement. A proposed deletion tag was recently removed from the article by the creator without explanation. -- Atama ^chat 22:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Atama ^chat 22:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - the proposed deletion tag was removed after references field was added to the article. The orphaned tag was removed since the links pointing to this page were introduced. If you believe that the article has an advertising spirit please feel free to edit it or point it to me and I will change asap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billystut (talk • contribs) 12:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The "references" added don't even come close to satisfying WP:RS. As to the orphan tag, there are no actual articles linking to this page, just a disambiguation page and a number of non-article pages. However, the orphaned status of this page has nothing to do with why I feel it should be deleted, my reasons are given in my original explanation above. I feel no need to clean up the page to remove the advertising aspect of it if the subject fails to meet the criteria for article inclusion. -- Atama ^chat 16:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete, as non poposes fails WP:CORP, can find no WP:Reliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Advertisement; no assertions of notability. Fails WP:CORP §FreeRangeFrog 00:35, 28 February 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 Charles_Randal_Smith#William_Mullins-Johnson. The material here is clearly considered worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia, but the concerns over WP:BLP1E within this debate suggest that a merge/redirect of content is necessary. I am not competent to perform the merge, but the material is available in the history, which will not be deleted. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill Mullins-Johnson

According to WP:BLP1E, articles such as these where the person is notable for one event should be included in an article on the event with the name redirected. In this case, Mr. Mullins-Johnson is only notable for having been wrongly convicted. I'm not sure if his specific case is notable enough to have its own article, but the pathologist that caused his wrongful conviction has dozens of other similar cases to his name, thus there may be cause to include this information in an article about him or the wrongful convictions he has caused. Adam Zel (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. —Adam Zel (talk) 14:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Adam Zel (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep — while the wrongful conviction was a single event, the news story ran for over a year in Canada, and still occasionally pops up. There have been a series of similar high-profile wrongful convictions in Canada, they remain a current topic (see the info box at the bottom of the article for the other names), and many of the names are familiar to the average Canadian. David (talk) 16:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One further thought: this might be a matter of different cultural perspectives. In Canada, the notability of the victim of a wrongful murder conviction (where the victim has served a significant amount of time) is huge — they're national lead stories for weeks or years, and names like Donald Marshall or Steven Truscott are probably better known than most of our medal-winning Olympic athletes (the Mullins-Johnson case is more recent, but it still belongs in the same group). I can understand why an American Wikipedian might be puzzled at the notability of stories like these, since for the U.S. media, wrongful-conviction stories are usually minor (if they go national at all) and quickly dropped, and compensation for the victims is strictly limited (in Canada, it can amount to over a million dollars, and the compensation hearings are major national stories in themselves). David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain how the fact that the series of similar wrongful convictions remaining a current topic makes this article an exception to BLP1E? As I said in the nomination, if the series is notable, which I think it may be, then they should all be included in one article together. Report on the event, not the person. Adam Zel (talk) 16:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my additional comment above, Adam. BPL1E applies only if the person remains a "low-profile individual." If a single event results in long-running notability — say, winning the Tour-de-France, or assassinating a major public figure — then it's not applicable. Wrongful convictions don't generally result in long-running notability in the U.S., but they do in Canada — the last national news story to mention Mullins-Johnson, according to Google News, was only a couple of weeks ago [26] David (talk) 16:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If reliable sources only cover the person in the context of a particular event, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted. [...] Cover the event, not the person." (Emphasis not mine). Adam Zel (talk) 17:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to play devil's advocate, would you then nominate the John Wilkes Booth article for deletion? Perhaps you could argue that he was also notable as an actor, so how about Mark David Chapman? No rules can be applied purely mechanically, or else we could just use bots to delete articles — you have to apply some human judgement, no matter how the policy doc is written. I understand that the final consensus might be one that I don't agree with, but clearly just quoting chapter and verse of BLP1E isn't going to resolve this or any other RFD — it's just one of many pieces of input we have to consider. David (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a large body of work studying Booth's life, motivation, etc. No such body exists here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:15, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly the kind of judgement I'm talking about. There's not the same large body for Mark David Chapman, but there probably have been books written about him, so I'm assuming that no one's arguing to delete that article. Is the Steven Truscott article safe for the same reason (famous for only one event, but several books written and, I think, a television movie)? Obviously, there's a lot more to discuss than just BLP1E. David (talk) 14:41, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both Booth and Chapman have books written about them among a great deal of other works. Mullins-Johnson does not. Adam Zel (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not sure deletion is the best course of action here, but perhaps merging the content or redirecting it to another article is. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Move to and Rewrite as R. v. Mullins-Johnson, the underlying court case per WP:BLP1E, which, as Dpm64 notes, is notable. THF (talk) 11:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks THF. That's an interesting suggestion, but it runs into two other problems: (1) there's not just the initial trial and its resumption years later, but also the forthcoming hearings for compensation; and (2) while Bill Mullins-Johnson's name is well known, the trial name isn't. BIO1E gives some guidance here: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." "R. v. Mullins-Johnson" gets 43 Google hits (mostly legal sources); "Bill Mullins-Johnson" gets 352 hits. David (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Bill Mullins-Johnson page will redirect to the case after the moving, so the Google search problem isn't an issue. Any civil compensation hearings can be covered in an "Aftermath" section. I'm not proposing losing any content, just for standardizing how we handle articles of this type. If there wasn't an AfD pending, I would just be WP:BOLD and do it. THF (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete The point of WP:BLP1E is to recognize that in some instances the amount of media coverage is not the best indication of whether information about the person is best offered in a separate encyclopedia article about the person. Although the coverage is widespread, the person is known for the one event so information about the person is best offered in an article about the event. FloNight♥♥♥ 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to an article about the event will allow people looking for information to find it. FloNight ♥♥♥ 13:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Coverage has been sustained over a period of time. As for the name of the article, it is perfectly fine. This article is about Mullins-Johnson and his wrongful conviction. It is not about a wrongful conviction, and oh, by the way, Mullins-Johnson is involved in it in some way. He is the primary subject. -- Whpq (talk) 21:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (move content and redirect) to the section in Charles Randal Smith. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Flo. There is no real need for this BLP to have an article. Wizardman 21:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment It's probably a bad idea to look at this article in isolation: need to consider it together with Donald Marshall, Jr., Steven Truscott, Robert Baltovich, David Milgaard, Guy Paul Morin, and James Driskell, all of whom are notable for the same reason, and often discussed together in Canada. David (talk) 11:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the appropriate section in Charles Randal Smith. This individual's wrongful conviction is fairly noteworthy in Canada (and thus is a likely search term, hence the proposed redirect), but not at the same level as those mentioned by User:Dpm64; those other wrongful convictions were specifically related to the individual, whereas Mullins-Johnson's was one of a series of criminal charges (some leading to wrongful convictions) related to the evidence given by Smith. In other words, it is the event (the conviction) that is notable, not the individual, and all similar events related to Smith should be grouped together. I'll note that Charles Randal Smith needs some work as well, mainly in linking available sources to the information in the article. Risker (talk) 23:49, 3 March 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. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joel Warady

Doesn't establish the notability of this person. Lacks significant 3rd party coverage. Existing references point to a pair of articles where he was quoted but is not the subject. Rtphokie (talk) 13:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I did a Lexis-Nexis Academic search for the phrase "Joel Warady", all time periods, Chicago Business sources (Chicago Tribune was not available for searching). Results? A single mention of the Joel Warady Group promotion of somebody else (not Warady) to a vp position. Second LN search, last 10 years, "Joel Warady" as a phrase, category "Major US and World News" turned up the same article, a couple of duplicate articles that also mention the Group (not the person) just in passing. The only direct third party source that directly mentions him just quotes him (Africa News, July 3, 2008, Kenya; Small Businesses Turning to Unusual AD Strategies):

Joel Warady, an Evanston, Illinois-based marketing consultant who created viral marketing campaigns for oral hygiene product TUNG brush, agrees. "People who try to sell on a video or who try to convince people to buy a product on a video are making a big mistake because that video will never become viral," he says. "That's the job of the Web site, not the video."

It's obvious the guy exists, but no indication of anything other than ephemeral notability, IMHO. --Quartermaster (talk) 14:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not DeleteIf he is notable enough to be quoted and interviewed on NBC Nightly News, Fortune Magazine, CBS Money Watch and multiple magazines, I think think this is proof that Joel Warady is a respected leader in the marketing industry. Furthermore, Warady is a notable speaker and has held professorship positions at several universities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.54.210.49 (talk) 16:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you can supply citations to which you speak? That would be useful in evaluating this gentleman's notability. --Quartermaster (talk) 19:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep A person thats been on NBC and yet NOT NOTICIABLE ENOUGH? I have heard no such thing. SNESCDADDON (talk) 19:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User's first edit. Wronkiew (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please refer to WP:N for more info on the criteria used to determine notability. Unless references showing significant 3rd party coverage can be produced, notability just cant be established.--Rtphokie (talk) 05:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please click on SNESCDADDON (comment above - appears to be a trollish sockpuppet). Comment: My brother-in-law has been interviewed twice on NBC and I've been featured once on a Japanese national television network. Neither of us meet WP's notability criteria beyond that. --Quartermaster (talk) 20:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO and WP:CORP. --Sc straker (talk) 22:31, 3 March 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. A7, spam Tone 22:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ignitas

Notability of this company is not established by the article. Company is not the subject of 3rd party references in the article. Rtphokie (talk) 13:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, blatant advertising written in patent nonsense: a strategy consulting and investment company that specializes in helping clients achieve value-added operations and profitable positions for their Internet-enabled and online businesses. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:16, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Buffalo Smith

Artist is non-notable and fails WP:MUSIC criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. GripTheHusk (talk) 11:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; the article may be largely unreferenced, but the references in place do carry some WP:BIO / WP:MUSIC weight, and if the unsourced statements are true, and refs can be added, this will further indicate this person's notability. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Internationally recognized musician. The article badly needs more references, and I've added the rescue tag in the hope that someone will help with that, and that quotes section should probably go or be refactored in some way. Artw (talk) 16:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Artw (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete - article is just an advertisement for the magazine that the article subject owns and promotes. The article subject attempts weak notability through association but does not have any notable achievement of their own to warrant a Wiki page. Fair Deal (talk) 01:03, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: looks like some self-promotion is going on [27], [28]. Insufficient independent 3rd party coverage WP:MUSICBIO. JamesBurns (talk) 01:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pure self-promotion of a non-notable subject. Aussie Ausborn (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete spam promo for Gritz.com and other associated websites. Wether B (talk) 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN advertising and nothing else. The Real Libs-speak politely 17:23, 3 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 07:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientific bodies with official statements on human-cause global climate change

This article is a subset of the article Scientific opinion on climate change and doesn't seem to me to be able to offer anything that that article cannot. Furthermore, classifying these bodies this way is WP:OR and WP:SYN. "Affirming" human-caused climate change is difficult to define, and attempting to distill a primary source into a binary yes/no without secondary sourcing is improper. What was the question again? Are they agreeing that humans have any effect on climate at all? Are they agreeing with every word of the last IPCC assessment? The article makes no distinction between these two and it can't because it's simply the opinion of WP editors as to what these long and complex statements agree about. Contrast this with scientific opinion on climate change, which provides quotes and context so that the nuance of the societies' actual positions is maintained.

A classic example of this is the first link I clicked on from this article: Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences. The "affirmation" of the IPCC position at that link is tenuous at best, and nowhere does it say that GHGs cause warming, only that CO2 causes "consequences" for the climate. Does this belong on this list? Isn't it OR to draw that conclusion without a secondary source?

The premise of this list is flawed from the getgo and any useful content should be merged back to Scientific opinion on climate change. Oren0 (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Content fork, and redundant to, Scientific opinion on climate change. -Atmoz (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My motivation for creating this list was to provide readers with a quick and easy reference to the scientific bodies included in Scientific opinion on climate change. When that article first started out, there were maybe 15 or so organization, and each one had it's subheading shown in the table of contents. Readers could quickly and easily scroll down the TOC and read their names. However, the number of organizations kept growing and growing and the TOC got to be too long and cumbersome. We finally had to regroup the organizations into their respective disciplines and collapse the TOC. This improved the quality of the article, but it took away reader's ability to see all the scientific bodies on a single page. The creation of this alphabetized list simply provides a more concise reference tool for readers interested in the topic.--CurtisSwain (talk) 00:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the motivation but my problem is the inherent WP:OR problem with placing these societies into arbitrary buckets. The scientific opinion article has this same issue, though it's to a lesser degree because at least on that page there is some amount of context. Oren0 (talk) 03:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should we have lists of bodies which have made statements upon other matters - the credit crunch, the war against terror, votes for women, free trade, etc? Such lists multiply vexatious matters in an unhelpful way. If important bodies have made relevant statements upon topics then they may be cited as sources and this seems adequate for our encyclopedic purpose. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons given by Warden. This tends toward indiscriminate information-gathering. WillOakland (talk) 11:06, 28 February 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Astley Cross

Article consists of a single sentence which fails to assert notability, since creation in August 2007 OrangeDog (talk • edits) 08:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; its a village, and general consensus says they are inherently notable. Stub status is not a standalone reason for deletion. Ironholds (talk) 08:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless better sources can be provided about this village. Gnaa, Nigeria was supposedly a village too, and look where that got us. JBsupreme (talk) 09:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gnaa was an obvious hoax related to the notorious GNAA trolls. This population center is not a hoax. --Oakshade (talk) 16:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete- a quick Google search will verify this place exists. Most of these, however, are things like "things to do in Astley Cross" and "Businesses in Astley Cross", so not the sort of thing you can build an article around, and I just don't buy the concept that things are inherently notable. It leads to a lot of tiny, unexpandable microstubs that clutter up Wikipedia and serve no useful purpose. Reyk _YO! 09:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All genuine villages are notable. If there are busineses there , and events, aand roads, and presumably some school sand churches, there will be content for an article, and all of it will be in the local newspapers. This should have been expanded, not brought here. Did anyone try? DGG (talk) 09:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a stub, but that is never reason for deletion on its own. The place exists and deserves to have a page. It should be expanded, but that is a seperate matter. Alberon (talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An opportunity to improve not remove. Pedro : Chat 11:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It may be a stub, but that's not a good reason for deletion. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Why must every populated settlement be notable? Unless any entities associated with the settlement are notable in their own right, all an article can be is a local directory or a travel guide, both things which Wikipedia is not. Just because something appears in a local paper does not make it notable. The fact that this article is a stub has nothing to do with why I nominated, it was because I cannot see any basis for claiming that the village is notable. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 12:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Places are considered notable because there is generally held to be an automatic interest in any place of more than a certain size/population due to the number of people that are likely to want information about it. Places are notable because they almost universally appear in multiple reliable sources (i.e., maps) and therefore satisfy the letter WP:N. Places are notable because there's no reason for them not to be, because there is a finite number of them, which is small enough that we can cope with handling all of them, and doesn't grow particularly quickly. WP:NOTPAPER applies. JulesH (talk) 15:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Real place with real communities of interest. Capitalistroadster (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Being one sentence is not a valid reason for deletion. That it's a population center is an assertion of notability.--Oakshade (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Being a stub is not a valid reason for deletion. real villages are inherently notable. Edward321 (talk) 02:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, inherent notability is nonsense but very few places aren't the subject of some reasonable commentary. Worst case, this can be upmerged to an administrative area or region. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No reason to delete has been provided - see WP:NOEFFORT. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Areley Kings or possibly Stourport-on-Severn, as Astley Cross appears to be only a small area (formerly a hamlet, now a residential area) with no official status as a village or parish, and not much coverage in reliable sources. —Snigbrook 00:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, all locations are notable pretty much. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With respects to the nom, the article does indeed assert notability: "Astley Cross is a village in Worcestershire, England, located on the outskirts of Stourport-on-Severn." It could be tagged for axpansion and sopurcing, but certainly not deletion. And it must be noted that though this article may never be more than a stub, that's perfectly okay. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:43, 3 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Fountain

Declined A7 speedy (by me) as asserts notability. However Google shows next to nothing - couldn't find it on Amazon.com which might at least help indicate something.... First time novelist, suspect this is purely promotional as creator is User:Rafountain0619. Recommend Delete Pedro : Chat 08:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is nothing notable here. References come only from his own website, the "review" doesn't speak that well of the book, and is only a general review along with many other titles. As this is a book, I would expect to see it in Amazon as well as other major on-line book sellers, the fact it's not getting much listing, speaks volumes. Both book and author are not notable. No reliable third party references. Artypants, ^Babble 19:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I did the original speedy of this article after research found nothing that showed he could pass WP:CREATIVE. I did find the book on Amazon, but when the publisher doesn't even have a website and the Publisher's Weekly review says, "Paper-thin characters and routine prose don't help the implausible plot," I think we can pass. If at some point he does become notable, it's easy enough to recreate. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and WP:V. Themfromspace (talk) 03:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On the article's talk page, User:24.61.63.100 (who I believe is also User:Rafountain0619) pointed out that the book is found in the holdings of 23 libraries according to WorldCat. I'm not sure if that meets the "[has] works in many significant libraries" portion of WP:CREATIVE or not. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 03:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who posted this article I think it does meet the criteria established. For example, a brief search revealed that The Wellwishers is available in the following public libraries. This is not a complete listing.

New York Public Library (multiple branches)

Miami Public Library (multiple branches)

Chicago Public Library

San Francisco Public Library

Cleveland Public Library (multiple branches)

Los Angeles Public Library

Austin, TX Public Library

Cambridge, MA Public Library

Wakefield, MA Public Library

Marblehead, MA Public Library

Newton, MA Public Library

Vancouver Public Library

State Library of Western Austrailia 24.61.63.100 (talk) 03:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The part here is has works - this is just one book not works plural. I admire the effort here, and believe any published author has done well - but we need third-party information from reliable sources. For information, in the UK it is a legal requirement that any book with an ISBN has a copy at the British Library - so just being in a collection really does not imply notabilty. For further information both of my parents are multiple (by wich I mean > 300 books in my fathers case) published writers, and one has a Wikipedia entry, so I do know whereof I speak, both as an admin on Wikipedia and as someone with more than a passing knowledge of the publishing world. Pedro : Chat 21:33, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The article is poorly written, and needs wikification, but it shows some evidence of notability. The Google searches noted above do, in fact, show some evidence. Bearian (talk) 20:28, 2 March 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Botley Village

Amateur football (soccer) team playing only at the 12th level of the English football league system (and only having moved up to that level this season), below the level that is generally considered notable by the WP:FOOTY project. No significant coverage found to get them through the GNG either. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. – Pee Jay 08:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As I understand it, the Hampshire League 2004 isn't part of the pyramid system at all (unlike the Hampshire Premier League, which is at the 11th step). Either way, the club falls short of the generally accepted criteria for English non-league clubs. And no, I'm not !voting delete becuase they beat Andover Reserves last month! Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTDIRECTORY of football clubs. They have nothing of note to their name and therefore don't belong in an encyclopaedia--ClubOranje^T 09:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the club has not played at a high enough level, and is therefore not notable. Giant Snowman 09:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing particularly notable about them to justify having an article. Chamal ^talk 13:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable. DeMoN2009 13:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. Uksam88 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - AFAICS, they're based in the Hampshire League 2004, which isn't even in the football pyramid. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. per nom. -- Alexf^(talk) 16:16, 2 March 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) Erik9 (talk) 01:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cozi Costi

Myself, I am neutral with respect to this article's deletion. I am completing the nomination on behalf of an IP editor, who states the following: "I think it should be deleted... WP:music clearly states and defines that an article must be deleted unless the person is herself notable and has herself charted hits... a contributing artist, back up singer, or secondary artist does not count.. without considering her secondary contribution to the david guetta song, it is a no brainer... i vote delete." Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i agree, I think it should be ""deleted""... WP:music clearly states and defines that an article must be deleted unless the person is herself notable and has herself charted hits...

a contributing artist, back up singer, or secondary artist does not count.. without considering her secondary contribution to the david guetta song... i vote delete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.81.24.151 (talk) 09:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Above comment is by the person quoted in the nomination and so at this time there is only one delete vote as Paul Erik clearly states he is neutral and the rest of his comments are quotes from 70.81.24.151.

Speedy keep, per WP:COMPOSER, which states that the following means notability: Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. That is exactly what is established, and as such, she is notable. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 11:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:COMPOSER as a co-writer of Naughty Girl (Holly Valance song). dissolve ^talk 08:19, 28 February 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 history of terrorism. MBisanz ^talk 05:38, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

History of terrorist groups

Not a topic that can ever be completed. I know no wikipedia page is ever complete per se but it would be impossible to cover the history of every single "influential" (which can be highly subjective) terrorist group; that is better done by a list of the groups which links to their articles. In addition the content is highly subjective, badly referenced and in some cases completely wrong (the leaders of the Easter Rising were lynched by the British authorities in London now? Ignoring the facts that 1) they were shot and 2) it was in Dublin Lynching is an extrajudicial action taken by a mob). Ironholds (talk) 07:43, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The page has a long way to go--and you have some good points to that end--but it serves an important purpose and should not be deleted. For those interested in the history of terrorist groups and how they have evolved--a very important topic--neither the "History of terrorism" page nor the "List of designated terrorist organizations" suffices. I have to disagree with your argument that the page should be deleted because it is "not a topic that can ever be completed....it would be impossible to cover the history of every single "influential" terrorist group." I disagree on the grounds that any history--history of England, history of the Roman Empire--has to select some events and leave out others. Yes, it is subjective. But a bunch of people discuss what they believe is or is not influential and should be included and it moves forward as a work in progress.

You argue that "that is better done by a list of the groups which links to their articles." I disagree: these lists do nothing to show how one group has influenced the tactics and goals of subsequent groups over time. Only a chronological, semi-narrative list such as the "History of terrorist groups" article can provide that.

"In addition the content is highly subjective, badly referenced and in some cases completely wrong (the leaders of the Easter Rising were lynched by the British authorities in London now? Ignoring the facts that 1) they were shot and 2) it was in Dublin Lynching is an extrajudicial action taken by a mob)." I agree that much of the content has errors in it. You obviously have a strong grasp on the subject matter: I think the wikipedia would be better served by you contributing your knowledge to this article and making it better than by it being deleted with no proper substitute.

As for the bad references, I'm currently working on it. Mcenroeucsb (talk) 07:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Describing who influenced what influenced why is best done in the History of terrorism article. A history of England, say, indeed leaves out bits, but those bits can be found elsewhere. The structure and format of this article would leave out entire organisations with no links to their articles. A good example would be this: A history of England has a short summary of the peninsular wars and links to a more detailed article. Your history of England would leave the peninsular war out entirely because, in your subjective opinion, it is "not an influential enough war". Note that this is an example; I'm not saying that is what you would do. How exactly do we select which organisation is worthy of inclusion? Whether they were successful? Organisations have failed and still been (pardon the pun) revolutionary. Whether they are "important"? In theory anything with an article on WP is "important". Whether they influenced other groups? Subjective, and subject to disagreements between academic sources. A quick note: it's "Wikipedia" not "the Wikipedia". Ironholds (talk) 08:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me agrees with the idea of having this incorporated with the History of Terrorism article. I'm open to suggestions on how to do that. Currently, the History of terrorism article is more of a narrative/list of major terrorist events rather than terrorist groups. It's rather difficult to merge the two. On the separate issue of whether or not all histories, for sheer lack of space, leave smaller details out, I would argue that there are some events which took place in England which a ten-page history of England just wouldn't have space to mention at all. (I say ten pages because that's about the size that the longer Wikipedia articles seem to be.) If there is a terrorist group that should be mentioned that's not yet on the page (I can think of several, including Lashkar-e-Taiba), then please put it in.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't really see any potential in this article; any addition is bound to be contentious and a NPOV/WTA violation Sceptre ^(talk) 11:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any article on the subject of terrorism (or piracy or Israel or Islam or Christianity) is bound to be contentious. That doesn't mean wikipedia shouldn't have articles on terrorism or piracy or Israel or Islam or Christianity. As for potential, terrorist groups come up in the news a lot these days--therefore I think a WP article that shows how these groups have evolved over time is very important and has a lot of potential.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: We have a lot of trouble deciding what exactly is a terrorist organization (see WP:TERRORIST). This is a major cause for edit wars, and as Sceptre more or less says, is something that is very hard to maintain NPOV on. In this article, how are we going to decide if an organization is a terrorist organization? By seeing if they are labeled as terrorist by a government? But even such groups are identified by some as freedom fighters or groups that are fighting for a just cause. Taking both these POVs into view, how do we determine if a group is terrorist 'enough' to be included here? Terrorist attacks are one thing, but a group is a different matter altogether. I'm neutral on the deletion of this article for now, until someone can clarify how this is handled. Chamal ^talk 13:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(one of) the issues. A group comes up: are they terrorists? Freedom fighters? Much talkpage wrangling and arguing results and they determine that yes, they are terrorists. Are they "influential" terrorists? At what point do they become influential enough for inclusion? Surely all groups are notable enough for inclusion if they are notable enough for a WP article? And so on. Ironholds (talk) 14:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are all valid questions. I think the best way to approach the "how are we going to decide if an organization is a terrorist organization?" question is to choose one definition and use it as a litmus test. One definition has been placed at the top of the article. If someone else finds a better definition, I'm game to try that out.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't understand why this should be a separate article from History of terrorism. Unless someone can clearly explain the difference between History of terrorism and History of terrorist groups, I will probably recommend deletion, but I will hold off temporarily. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of me agrees with the idea of having this incorporated with the History of Terrorism article. I'm open to suggestions on how to do that. Currently, the History of terrorism article is more of a narrative/list of major terrorist events rather than terrorist groups. It's rather difficult to merge the two.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Groups which use propaganda of the deed are regularly discussed in the news, in universities, and in government policy. On those grounds I think it is extremely important to have an article which traces how the goals and tactics of these groups have evolved over time, even if it is a difficult task ridden with POV obstacles.Mcenroeucsb (talk) 07:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC) note: keep !vote made by article creator, hardly of objective value[reply]

Comment: I've looked over the Wikipedia deletion policy page. If we follow the guidelines laid out on that page, I think the page should be kept.

Two points:

First off, the “Wikipedia:Articles for deletion” page instructs that one should “Note that stubs and imperfect articles are awaiting further development and so the potential of the topic should be considered.” This article is poorly sourced and that should be worked on, but because it has potential and is awaiting further development, it should not be deleted.

Second and finally, none of the thirteen main reasons for deletion on the “Wikipedia:Deletion policy” page apply to this article. These reasons are listed below.
1) Copyright violations and other material violating Wikipedia's fair-use policy. The article, so far as I can tell, does not violate any copyrights.
2) Vandalism, including inflammatory redirects, pages which exist only to disparage their subject, patent nonsense, or gibberish. This page does not exist only to disparage its subject. It exists to explore patterns in the history and evolution of groups which use terrorism. I suppose that “history of groups which use violent propaganda of the deed” would be less inflammatory than “history of terrorist groups,” but it’s also wordy and confusing. And although “foreign nonstate actor who commits criminal violence committed at sea” may have fewer pejorative connotations than “pirate,” I think it makes the most sense to continue calling Francis Drake and Henry Morgan pirates and to continue calling Aum Shinrikyo and Al-Qaeda terrorist groups.
3) Advertising or other spam without relevant content (but not an article about an advertising-related subject). This page is not advertising.
4) Content forks (unless a merge or redirect is appropriate). If any of the reasons for deletion are applicable, this would be it. I am not opposed to merging this article with “history of terrorism,” but I think that causes more problems than it solves. The argument seems to be that merging the two articles would prevent WP from having two redundant articles. But these articles are taking very different paths and are increasingly diverging as edits are added. And merging the articles makes for a very confusing narrative owing to the fact that many of these groups are founded as political groups and then part of the group does a bombing or some other violent propaganda of the deed ten, twenty, or fifty years later.
5) Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms, original theories and conclusions, and articles which are themselves hoaxes (but not articles describing notable hoaxes). There’s a lot of great scholarship on this topic, so I don’t think this is an issue.
6) Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed. There’s a lot of great scholarship on this topic, so I don’t think this is an issue either.
7) Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth). Terrorist groups have had great influence on the world and foreign policy for at least the past decade (if not the past century) and are often discussed, researched, and debated. Therefore, I believe that this article’s subject “merits its own article.”
8) Articles which breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons This isn’t really the issue at hand. Most of the persons discussed in the article are deceased.
9) Redundant or otherwise useless templates. Not applicable.
10) Categories representing overcategorization While there are differing opinions on how to define “terrorism” (or “piracy” or “war”), I think we can settle on a definition, apply the definition as a litmus test to groups as to whether or not they merit being mentioned in the article, and thereby avoid overcategorization.
11) Images that are unused, obsolete, or violate fair-use policy. Not that I know of.
12) Any other use of article, template, project, or user namespace that is contrary to the established separate policy for that namespace. Not applicable.
13) Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia. I think this article’s content is very suitable for an encyclopedia, despite its inflammatory nature.
Mcenroeucsb (talk) 08:28, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of terrorist groups have used propoganda, yes; I'd go with ALL of them, which links back to my earlier point about subjective inclusion. I'd argue this fails point five; you cannot have a standalone history of every terrorist group ever, and neither can you have a standalone history of those terrorist groups which you personally feel are notable. If there are particular propaganda related trends or influences then History of Terrorism is the place for them. A standalone fork like this would be divisive, POV-filled and cause more friction than it could possibly have encyclopaedic value. Ironholds (talk) 13:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single, unified movement, hard to define, and could conceivably go back to prehistory. Will become the land of edit wars, and a hotbed for POV-pushing. Zazaban (talk) 00:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: No reason to why the entire article should be scrapped. POV can systematically be removed. Article contains a considerable amount of useful information. -- 李博杰 | —Talk contribs 03:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge then, with history of terrorism. Zazaban (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean smerge. Ottre 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Smerge to history of terrorism. The article already exists, so improve. Don't write a separate article on the same topic. -- Whpq (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or smerge to history of terrorism; I agree that an article like this has a role in keeping track of terrorist groups, but unless someone wants to have a full-time job of tracking and updating this page, I'd say it's future potential as it's own page is strained. Ks64q2 (talk) 04:46, 3 March 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:51, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rehan Kadri

Makes claim of notability and PROD was contested, but looks like nonsense. Don't see this name in the credits and no google hits for the claimed character name. Even assuming this is a real entry, sounds like insufficient notability. OTOH, really sounds like a vanity-page of a totally non-notable random person. DMacks (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Punkmorten (talk) 14:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Misses WP:ENTERTAINER by a long shot. May have been speedy-able under A7. Abecedare (talk) 04:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete for goodness sake. Simple {{nn-bio}}. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:24, 1 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kase cobain

Prod Tag Removed. This artist appears to fail WP:NOTE. ∗ \ / (⁂) 05:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (if not speedy). Fails WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Chief assertion of notability is as US Taekwondo champion, however a search for "Taekwondo" +"Kase Cobain" produces one hit. Also claims to be a rapper: search for "Diamonds and Guns" +"Kase Cobain" produces 120 hits. pablo_hablo. 06:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I realised that I should have searched for the taekwondo under his real name: +"Keary Watson" +taekwondo produces one relevant hit, and here it is: [29], which I don't think satisfies notability guidelines for sport. pablo_hablo. 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is subject to deletion for invaluable reasons. The information is accurate and verifiable through online search of each fact. Artist has used various names during his career and has made valuable contributions to his artform. A statement was made that Kase Cobain appears to be a myspace and youtube artist which has no bearing on the validity of the statements or the accomplishments of the artist. I would site myspace.com as the source of numerous platinum selling records/ artists in today's music market. Examples: Tila Tequila, Ciara, Soulja Boi.

Kase Cobain (Keary Watson) participated in the 2000 US Olympic Team Trials for the 2000 Sydney Olympic Games after which Nike Athletics selected him for an add campaign which placed billboards with his image in all US and Japan Niketown stores. He is respected as a fellow professional by music industry and players from LA to New York. I feel that its important that the editors here be educated on the current status of the industry they are reviewing before deciding wether or not a person has made the grade or not. Please take these points into consideration.

"Keary Kase" generates 1,840 hits "Keary Kase"+"Life Of A Star" generates 425 "Keary Kase"+"Oowee" generates 161 hits "Keary Kase"+"Live Fast Die Hard" generates 171 hits "Kase Cobain" generates 14000+ hits "Kase Cobain"+"Diamonds And Guns"generates 396 hits —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasecobain (talk • contribs) 08:02, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Not if you include the inverted commas to search for the exact strings:

"Keary Kase" generates ~~1,840~~ 500 hits

+"Keary Kase"+"Life Of A Star" generates ~~425~~ 65

+"Keary Kase"+"Oowee" generates ~~161~~ 120 hit

+"Keary Kase"+"Live Fast Die Hard" generates ~~171~~ 1 hit

+"Kase Cobain" generates ~~14000+~~ 1,080 hits

+"Kase Cobain"+"Diamonds And Guns"generates ~~396~~ 119 hits

Many artists do achieve success through Myspace and Youtube, but I don't think this one has done so yet. pablo_hablo. 09:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per pablo and per lack of independent third-party references. A random number of hits alone isn't going to persuade people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One reference above demonstrates his achievements in tae kwon do, apparently competing with some success at the highest level of the sport in the US which meets the requirements of WP:ATHLETE. There's also an independent reference here about his career as a rapper and as manager of an escort agency. Article needs cleanup work, but that is not a reason to delete it. JulesH (talk) 15:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:Athlete says

People who have competed at the fully professional level of a sport, or a competition of equivalent standing in a non-league sport such as swimming, golf or tennis.
People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport, usually considered to mean the Olympic Games or World Championships.

"taking part in the trials" for the Olympics isn't really competing at the highest amateur level. pablo_hablo. 16:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The US National Team Trials is not an "open" tournament. It is an invitational exclusive to elite (professional) level competitors who have been victorious at National Championships sanctioned by the governing body (formerly USTU). Again, the number of hits reported by those disputing this article are inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kasecobain (talk • contribs) 19:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google hits != notability. ∗ \ / (⁂) 00:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A listing on a self-published tae kwon do school website does not meet the sourcing standards for a biography of a living person. A single article doesn't meet the "significant coverage" in reliable sources requirement for establishing notability. dissolve ^talk 08:36, 28 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Laguna Beach soundtrack

List's stated intent is to give a list of songs featured in a particular TV series. No indication is given that these tracks were ever released as a compilation album. No justification as to why this is a particular cultural phenomenon is given. This is a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization per WP:NOTDIR. Information is non-notable trivia and cannot reasonably be added to List of Laguna Beach episodes. The article should therefore be deleted. (note this was the subject of a PROD that was removed with no justification and no other changes to article.) Rogerb67 (talk) 05:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 05:53, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 05:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Rogerb67 (talk) 05:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not MTV.com/LagunaBeach/musicplayedontheshow or whatever it is. There was never a soundtrack released, and this reads more as a list of songs that were played on the show, which you can probably easily find on the program's website or any fansites (if they still exist). Nate • (chatter) 06:04, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory of information lacking references. Wikipedia covers coverage about the material, its not just an (uncited) list of details. Themfromspace (talk) 06:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a Wikipedia:List article:

A list article is an article that lays out in table format a list of links to article entries with a common theme, often with other information. The category feature on Wikipedia automatically creates lists but does not include information other than links to the article.

List articles are a useful way to organize information, especially as Wikipedia becomes ever larger and more complex. It is also a useful way to quickly compare and contrast differences and similarities among the different entries.

List articles are not new to encyclopedias. Many contain list articles such as a list of presidents, prime ministers or other heads of state in chronological order for different countries. Esasus (talk) 01:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But per WP:STAND the lists have to abide by Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, including WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 01:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...and WP:NOTDIR; my nomination addresses the article primarily as a list. --Rogerb67 (talk) 02:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand as Wikipedia:List article since WP:STAND specifcally refers only to content WP:POLICYs and wisely says absolutely nothing about subjective guidelines such as WP:N: "Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are articles that primarily consist of a list or a group of lists, linking to articles or lists in a particular subject area, such as a timeline of events or people and places. The titles of these articles usually begin with "list of" or "timeline of". Stand-alone lists are Wikipedia articles; thus, they are equally subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view.", and Wikipedia:List article is not contravened by WP:NOT. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTDIR is part of WP:NOT and thus applies; as discussed in the nomination, this article is clearly a non-encyclopedic cross-categorisation and should be deleted as such. Additionally, WP:INDISCRIMINATE (again part of WP:NOT) refers the reader to WP:N twice; it should therefore be considered highly relevant to all articles including list articles. --Rogerb67 (talk) 01:48, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with nominator. WP:NOT. JamesBurns (talk) 06:15, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOTDIR. Information more appropriate for a fan website. Not an encyclopedic intersection - songs + this tv series. --Dweller (talk) 12:17, 2 March 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 reverse engineering. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fravia

Poorly written POV article that does not meet WP:BIO. There are no independent sources, either. Anything that can actually be salvaged from this can be merged into reverse engineering. I propose Fravia be a redirect. Enigma^msg 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My findings were consistent with the nomination. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Close nomination/Be bold! You don't need AFD to make something into a redirect. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect: Agree with MGM. Subject is not notable enough to have a separate article. Nominator's suggestion seems to me to be the best thing to do, rather than deletion. Chamal ^talk 13:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page is very useful by itself and should not be merged with anything else. Poorly or not poorly is debatable, you write better if you can! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.121.10.143 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song)

No indication of notability. didn't chart or win an award. unsourced. Duffbeerforme (talk) 04:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:~~

Again, suggest separating these things as they are quite unique. Redirect "Somewhere Over the Slaughterhouse (song)", "The Ballad of Buckethead", and "Big Sur Moon" back to their respective albums but keep "We Are One (Buckethead song)" for possible notability through its involvement on the Masters of Horror soundtrack. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also suggesting separating those because they are different cases.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 13:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all into the respective albums. hornoir (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Due to some of the above comments I am unbundling the extra articles and creating individual afds. Duffbeerforme (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This is the title track on its respective album. That prominence denotes its notability. Spinach Monster (talk) 16:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song was included to "Over the Rainbow" but has been thrown out there because of its nature ("not a true cover, but more a spoof version", see [30]). There's a book, W.A.R. by Mick Wall, dealing with the album and the song as part of Bucketehad's time with Guns N' Roses (ISBN 0312377673, 9780312377670), but I've not read it yet. Just ordered.--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 18:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 19:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-plausible search term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 12:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: insufficient independent 3rd party coverage, non-notable WP:NSONGS. JamesBurns (talk) 02:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Someone may be canvasing [31] Duffbeerforme (talk) 14:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good enough for me. ResMar 20:07, 2 March 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. WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TV-B-Gone

Advertisement with no assertion of notability or citations to reliable sources Dlabtot (talk) 04:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It does read like an ad for sure, but it's a product which recieved plenty of press for it's use and grief from the CES over Gizmodo acting like twelve-year olds and playing with it at last year's convention. I think sources for at least the prank and in turn the product's use can be found. Nate • (chatter) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and mark for cleanup. There are plenty of reliable sources ([32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]) and I wonder if the nominator made the effort to look for them before deciding this product is non-notable. JulesH (talk) 08:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if you are serious about your assertion that gaj-it.com and gizmodo.com are reliable sources. If the article is retained, the ad copy should be deleted from it at a bare minimum. Dlabtot (talk) 17:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are plenty of sources for this one. JBsupreme (talk) 09:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JulesH - Mgm|^(talk) 10:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Sources provided by JulesH clearly show that the notability is more than enough for us to have an article on it. It's in serious need of a copyedit though :) Chamal ^talk 13:45, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well sourced, but right now fails WP:ADVERT. Radiopathy (talk) 19:01, 1 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 05:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rescue of Mitsunari

Article seems to be about a map in the game Samurai Warriors 2, which does not appear to be notable. Nn123645 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What is your opinion of the author's other two articles, Siege of Edo Castle and Battle of Kusegawa? Fg2 (talk) 04:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Fg2 (talk) 04:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, the article is obviously not very good, and its focus on the game is unfortunate, but much of the content in Samurai Warriors is based on actual events and history, however tenuously. It definitely features a number of battles that are based on actual major historical events, which tend to be inherently notable. Now, I don't know enough about the subject matter to know whether this particular event ever took place in any form, or if it would be notable enough to merit an article of its own, but it might not be wise to dismiss the article as gamecruft simply because it's written by someone who probably knows much more about the game than the history it references. -- Captain Disdain (talk) 09:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I suggested a timeline-version of the documentation of SW battles instead of the three articles that he created. I have copied the text and will paste it onto my Reminders subpage and work in a timeline article. But for regular articles, this just does not fit the modus operandi of Wikipedia. -BlueCaper (talk) 13:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This would be a fabulous source on the historical incident, which merits coverage somewhere if we don't all ready have it. Unfortunately, I'm having great difficulty reconciling what's written in the book and this article, making me think that the article is either incorrect, or focusing on a non-notable sub-skirmish instead of the notable incident. If it's the former we should delete, if its the latter, by the time we move this to a new title in rewrite it, it would be just as easy to start a frest article with a proper history. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:12, 28 February 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. No sources were added, conditions not met. MBisanz ^talk 05:35, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Computer-generated content

WP:NEO failing article presents "Computer-generated content" as an antonym to User-generated content existing in "Web 3.0". Artw (talk) 03:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article cites no sources, and it mentions that computer-generated content is a part of Web 3.0 - which is a redlink. Until this receives coverage in multiple secondary sources, it's not notable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-While it is unsourced, it is notable. There is a progression to computer generated content(artificially created). Google currently has 21 million results.Smallman12q (talk) 21:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Computer-generated content is content which is computer generated. Now let me share my theory of Web 3.0 with you. Coatracky OR. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 03:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AMIB. The creation of the article was an excuse for the author to post his thoughts on the future of the internet. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Cite sources and prove WP:NPOV. Radiopathy (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep per above. Nerfari (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep if sources can be fount to meet WP:N requirements, it should be kept. Killiondude (talk) 08:55, 2 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Sitch

This is a non-notable person Lester 03:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NOTINHERITED. WWGB (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only additional hit I found was [39], not enough. THF (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, his sole claim to notability would seem to be that he is related to someone famous, and that's not good enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:29, 3 March 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 per WP:HEY and WP:SNOW; it is greatly improved. This band tours widely across North America, is a leading band of its genre, and there are many secondary sources that show its notability, thus meeting WP:MUSIC. Some additional tags may be appropriate. Bearian (talk) 20:38, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lez Zeppelin

Disputed prod, no justification given when removing the prod template. Article is written like an advertisement of the band. No reliable sources. Does not meet WP:BAND Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 02:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confirm sources and rewrite. There are multiple references made to notable, reliable sources, and until it can be shown that those are false references, there's enough to justify keeping the article. It is poorly written at this point, but that is no reason to delete. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BAND. Dlabtot (talk) 04:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This group clearly meets the first criteria for WP:BAND, in that the group has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician or ensemble itself and reliable. See the quotes contained in the article from the likes of The New York Times; and a band biography on Allmusic.com. But the kicker for me is the MTV.com news article. Esasus (talk) 05:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I was going to vote delete but having a look around on Google, there is probably enough on the internet to write up a decent article. It needs a good copyedit with sourcing, not deletion. JamesBurns (talk) 05:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now has reliable sources. Coverage meets WP:BAND. Major editing needed. Duffbeerforme (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and Clean Up. There are enough sources to write an article about this group. I would warn that it may be a copyvio as currently written. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notability has been demonstrated by the reliable sources now provided. Certainly a non-promotional and verifiable article needs to be written here; but the current state is a worthy starting point for that. ~ mazca ^t|c 18:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I read through the MTV news article, which makes it notable enough. Plenty of other mentions of it in legitimate third party media sources to qualify as notable. Dream Focus 03:26, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional Keep Passes WP:BAND, fails WP:ADVERT - it reads too much like a promo piece right now. Radiopathy (talk) 17:14, 28 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Titzer

The Article is orphaned, for one thing, there is little to no content, and it is a stub. Veraladeramanera (talk) 02:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

comment Veraladeramanera appears to be the author of the article, and to have defended it previously. Something odd going on here? Artw (talk) 02:49, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is some discussion on the talk page that is relevant here. Seems as if the author is frustrated about concerns regarding notability, perhaps? fuzzy510 (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In this edit, the author wrote "I do not know how to delete, so I would like you to." Doesn't that fall under WP:CSD#G7? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
note prior AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Titzer (my delete !vote there applies here too) that article was deleted by AfD Oct 16 2008, the article with the current spelling was speedied Oct 17 2008, ~~suggest salting this time around for both name versions. Pete.Hurd (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)~~ swayed by arguments below against salting, still recommentd deletion. Pete.Hurd (talk) 18:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I read the previous AfD discussion. Based on that, and my own WP:PROF research on the subject (doesn’t pass WP:PROF, as noted by Pete.Hurd), I would be inclined to recommend delete and salt. However, there appears to be significant news coverage of the subject, possibly making it notable under WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 15:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A quick google shows some evidence of notability, but since the current article is largely the work of Veralderamenera I think it's probably better to delete it under WP:CSD#G7, per HelloAnnyong, and bypass any wikidrama that might spin out of arguing for and against deletion. I don't think salting is appropriate, as someone else might have valid reasons for writing an article in that namespace. Artw (talk) 16:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sounds reasonable to me.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Or they might even do it before the AFD is over - see below. Artw (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article was a copyright violation of this, but I have since rewritten the article. The multitude of reliable sources about this person, including this Los Angeles Times article confirms his notability per WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rewrite looks good. Artw (talk) 23:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - The article is stub-class for one thing. Several administrators don't want it on wikipedia, I even agree with them, the article was copied almost entirely from the book, and it is of near-low importance. Veraladeramanera _Talk —Preceding undated comment added 03:37, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I've stricken out your delete vote above because since you started this deletion nomination, you shouldn't add delete votes to the discussion. You may make comments, but please don't prefix your comments with "delete". Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who doesn't want this article on Wikipedia? The arguments for deletion in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert C. Titzer are moot since the article is no longer copied from the book. I have rewritten the article. If you have any objections to the content that is currently in the article, feel free to voice your concerns on which content is objectionable. Thanks, Cunard (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There seems to be significant news coverage; passes WP:BIO.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just with respect to the nomination, , "orphaned", "stub" and "little contenet" are none of them reasons for deletion. DGG (talk) 02:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep but not as an academic. As an academic, he is throughly non-notable. He is co-author of one published paper only, "Knowing in the context of acting: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error" by Smith, L.B., Thelen, E., Titzer, R., McLin, D. in Psychological Review , Volume 106, Issue 2, April 1999, Pages 235-260. It has 96 citations, but he was not a principal author, principal authors appear to have been Linda B Smith, with 96 papers, highest citations 163, 153, 119, 113. and Esther Thelen, with 69 papers, highest citations 203, 153, 147, 117, with many joint papers. He and McLin (who has 5 other papers) were just some junior people in the group; the work is about Piagetian theories of spatial perception, and not really loosely connected with his method of teaching reading. There is no actual evidence he has ever been a professor of anything anywhere: he appears to have held a tenure track job for only 2 years, at a minor university. But as a self-advertising propagandist of dubious educational theories, which have a modest amount of popular attention, he might be notable. Among the references for the article or in Google, there is only one among them that has any degree of objectivity, the 1998 one from the LA Times. The ABC news "story" is fundamentally a just a copy of his publicity, as can be seen from the identical language to the others. Needs considerable editing to make clear that this is pseudo-science. DGG (talk) 04:23, 2 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:29, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Blair (senior)

First nomination, closed 'no-consensus'

may fail WP:BIO. The subject is father to a former British Prime Minister, and a former law lecturer. There is nothing particularly professorly about Leo Blair, and there are few sources on him, as Tony Blair is the major focus. All the content is already in the Tony Blair article. ( Leo Blair redirects to Tony Blair) Ohconfucius (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There are two sources (though only 1 is non-redundant with Blair), but I'd like to see more work done on trawling for his publications and such before this is deleted outright. Ancemy (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given that there are enough sources to write a complete biography of him. He has at least one book to his credit as an author. [40] Capitalistroadster (talk) 04:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subject does not appear to be notable on his own. Dlabtot (talk) 04:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Since there are sufficient sources to write a reasonable biography. If it is decided this shouldn't stand alone, there's still a family section in the Tony Blair article in which he'd fit nicely.- Mgm|^(talk) 10:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are suitable references and this academic is a book author. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:50, 1 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julien Mayfair

This is an article on a fictional character from a ~~non-notable book without an article~~ book. The article mentions the subject solely with plot summary, and the article contains neither real-world information nor any assertion of notability. Scapler (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the original author gave the wrong title for this series of books. It is the Mayfair Witches trilogy by Anne Rice, which includes The Witching Hour (novel), Lasher and Taltos (novel). FreplySpang 02:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Thank you for the clarification. Strike that part of the comment then. Still, this article is nothing but plot without real-world connection or assertion of notability for the character. According to WP:WWIN: Wikipedia is not a plot summary: "Wikipedia treats fiction in an encyclopedic manner, discussing the reception, impact, and significance of notable works". Also, from WP:Notability (fiction): "it is not normally advisable to have a separate article on every fictional character, episode, or scene that appears in a work of fiction, such that the coverage contains only trivial details or information about the plot". Scapler (talk) 03:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment WP:Notability (fiction) is a proposed guideline, not an adopted one, and should not be considered in AfDs at all until it passes. Vote Neutral & Merge to book series article, otherwise tag for wikify and cleanup. MLauba (talk) 21:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment - That's why I also included a quote from Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) below which says about the same thing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 02:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - This is not a plot summary of any of the books mentioned, merely the back story of one of the characters in the books. The history is pieced together by certain chapters in each book, one chapter in the frst book and three in the second. This is not an outline of the plot of any novel. However, I will be happy to mention how/why and through what manner they are told in the books, as well as the significance of Julien's story to the plot of the books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WendyNotsid (talk • contribs) 07:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Major character from two highly notable book series (the character also features in Blackwood Farm and Blood Canticle, which are Vampire Chronicles books). JulesH (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- I can't find any sources apart from, presumably, the books themselves which makes it highly unlikely that coverage of this character can ever be more than the excessive plot summary that it is now. Reyk _YO! 09:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Major character in highly notable fiction. This is sufficient for an article. As Rice is frequently reviewid, there will be 3rd party sources and no one should say otherwise who hasnt made a proper try. Why should there be room for expansion-- as we get the sources they will discuss motives, and relationships with other characters, and all the sort of things that people write about when the write about fiction. There are interviews with the author also, where she presumably talks about these things. Agreed the article is poorly written at present because it does do all this, but you can assume it can't be done. With any major author, you can generally assume that it can be be done. At least it isn't copyvio. The grammar is too poor. Plenty of room for improvement here. Plenty of time do do it,m if we could accept that major characters in major fiction are worth having, and work on the articles. DGG (talk) 10:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Prominent character? He's only mentioned a couple of times in The Mayfair Witches. There's no reason to keep a badly written article lying around when we can redirect. The history will still be around for improvement. - Mgm|^(talk) 10:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment - It does not matter how notable she is within the work of fiction, rather it matters what real-world content such as creation, reception, influence, etc. from reliable third-party sources the article contains. WP:WAF: "When an article is created, the subject's real-world notability should be established according to the general notability guideline by including independent reliable secondary sources". I do not see any of these. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 12:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as wholly unsourced and consisting solely of plot. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 07:34, 1 March 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. (non-admin housecleaning closure) Sceptre ^(talk) 11:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Tangradi

Fails WP:ATH. Has not played in a fully professional league. From what I can see, OHL is a junior, non-professional league. It is likely that he will play in the NHL, but that relies on WP:CRYSTAL. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close and speedy: didn't see previous afd. Argument still stands. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 02:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete I've tagged the article for G4. Cunard (talk) 02:11, 27 February 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. There is not really anything to merge since there is no merge location, and there is no need to keep this as a redirect to Taggart since it was at the wrong title to start with (with the quotes). Fram (talk) 13:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Dead Man Walking"

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/"Dead Man Walking"

Contested prod, removed by author. Article is about an episode of a show, but gives no explanation as to its notability, and does not list any secondary sources. Fails WP:RS, WP:N. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Dead Man Walking: unlike this television episode, the other is clearly notable, and this title wouldn't be an implausible redirect. Nyttend (talk) 20:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Do episodes of shows need to demonstrate notability? I know a lot of serialized shows have an article for every episode (e.g., Prison Break) even though almost none of them are notable on their own. If it really is the case that episodes can inherit notability, then it would be more appropriate to move this to Dead Man Walking (Taggart episode). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 20:42, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on the proposal at WP:FICT, an episode would be notable if either it met WP:GNG or the show it was an episode of was particularly notable, the episode is important to understanding the show as a whole and there are sources that give significant real-world information about the episode (e.g. its production, or the influence it has had on other works). This episode fails the second and third of these tests, I think. JulesH (talk) 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, but didn't that proposal fail? (I wasn't paying close attention towards the end, but that's the impression I got.) rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:01, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:EPISODE passed and is a guideline, and it says that WP:GNG must be applied. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:57, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a suitable list of episodes. By any standard this article is not acceptable. I think WP:FICT is at point still so much a matter of disagreement that it cannot be used as evidence for any fixed rule, but I have seen nobody there at all that would say that article on episodes are automatically notable, at least except for some very exceptional shows. The default is a combination article. I think it has not yet been started, so it could begin with the material here. DGG (talk) 03:17, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violates WP:NOT#Plot. There is no suitable place to merge to, and I don't think the title is a likely search term for either the episode of the tv show or the movie or book by the same name. Karanacs (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 02:03, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Since the ep has no sources on its own, make it part of a list. Ancemy (talk) 03:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a list article as is standard. If no such list exists, redirect to series article for now. Hobit (talk) 03:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 03:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into list article, or, alternatively, delete. Enigma^msg 05:28, 27 February 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. Mgm|^(talk) 10:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Dickson (doctor)

There are some assertions of notability linking him to others; but nothing that establishes his notability as a doctor or a minister. StarM 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, agree that what he did had little impact and is not enough to pass WP:BIO Letsdrinktea (talk) 03:45, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agreed, can't find anything else of interest about him. Brianyoumans (talk) 04:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 04:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think singlehandedly training the first female physician is a significant contribution. The article probably needs to be expanded and may need to rely on print sources. Tractops (talk) 02:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment except helped the first female doctor Elizabeth Blackwell, to prepare for medical school. is NOT singlehandedly training the first female physician StarM 02:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 01:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unless someone can find a dedicated memoir about him or something, I can't see this being notable. Ancemy (talk) 03:21, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. JBsupreme (talk) 09:08, 27 February 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. A7 Tone 22:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008 Newnan Cougars football season

This article is about one year of a high school football team. Nothing important/newsworthy/notable/significant about it. ~EdGl (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Nothing even remotely notable about the team itself, not to mention this season. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:10, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think this would have fallen under CSD since it does attempt notability, but it's really not. Non-notable season by a non-notable team. Moreover, it cites no sources, so it fails WP:RS too. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per established precedent. High school teams don't get articles about each of their seasons. Enigma^msg 05:33, 27 February 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 as recreation of deleted content. Also, could not find any notice of this particular game at MMO journalism sites like massively.com. Perhaps it can be recreated with independent sources after its formal debut. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crowns of power

I can see this becoming a contested PROD, so pulling into AfD for consensus. The company seems to fail WP:CORP; only 600 or so ghits for "Rampid Interactive" "Crowns of power". §FreeRangeFrog 01:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:35, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article seems like one big advertisement for the game. It cites no secondary sources; the only one that's not the official website is a blog. And it doesn't really assert its notability in any way. Maybe this article can be recreated once the game receives coverage at E3. As a side note, the article is written by Rampid (talk · contribs), which is almost certainly a WP:COI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently he's the "General Manager" [41] of the company, yay. §FreeRangeFrog 04:37, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note - Article was deleted in 2007 along with a bunch of others created by the company, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outwar (2nd nomination). §FreeRangeFrog 04:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (G4) as recreation of deleted material. Nothing seemingly to have changed since the last AFD on this over a year ago. Oh, yeah, the horror. MuZemike 07:20, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Next Head of the Unification Church

No indication that this organization has been covered any where other than this article. Makes a number of serious accusations without source Leivick (talk) 00:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, insufficient context. I have no idea what the heck this article is about. Powers ^T 01:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Non notable church, no sources, POV galore. I wouldn't be surprised if this is a copyvio, too. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I didn't understand the original article....

Strong Delete POV essay, fails WP:NOR and WP:CRYSTAL. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 01:50, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The Unification Church is plenty notable and has a perfectly fine article. The above two !voters could have found the context and the church's notability quite easily by searching on keywords in this article's title. Jclemens (talk) 01:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, but no. The context has to be in the article, not somewhere out there in the great Internet ether. Powers ^T 12:33, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as speedy decliner. Fails WP:CRYSTAL, is substantially an OR essay. Jclemens (talk) 01:27, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 01:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A mess of an article, possibly spam. Ancemy (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a speculative essay, so it fails WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 11:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't make much sense of this page. It looks like somebody copied the text of a Wikipedia page (without the wikicoding, so that the references got separated from the text they were supposed to refer to), along with part of a talk page including some signatures. We already have a section of an article that discusses this topic in a much better way at Unification Church#Future church leadership. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Per the many comments and arguements above. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:25, 28 February 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.

I would like to renominate this article for deletion. I think hindsight is 20/20 here and while this individual did have 15 minutes of fame at one point in time it is safe to say he doesn't meet the requirements for Notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vasant56 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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. MBisanz ^talk 02:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh_Atkin

Delete Fails to meet notability guidelines. I feel compelled to propose the deletion of this article under Wikipedia's guideline of People only notable for one event . For those who aren't familiar with the context, Hugh Atkin created a video called the Barack Roll which is a Barack Obama related parody of the Rick Roll phenomenon that was released during the 2008 Presidential election.

Atkin's video, while funny, is really just a parody of a video that is essentially a parody of something else. Viral videos aren't uncommon, with new ones being released monthly. With a view count of 6 million, the Barack Roll is hardly the most popular video, with videos such as Star Wars Kid attaining over 900 million views. Still, it is one of the few that have a dedicated article for its creator (even though the video wasn't considered notable enough to have a dedicated article for itself). Ultimately, keeping this article might set a precedent for all viral video creators to try and get an article on Wikipedia in the future. While I have no qualms with the videos themselves appearing on Wikipedia, having biographies of the creators might begin to dilute the quality of the website.

Secondly, while his video was notable at one point in time, combined with the decline of the popularity of the "Rick Roll", since the election, the popularity of video has dwindled further. As the video falls more and more into obscurity, there is less of a need to have an article about its creator.

Lastly, looking at the sources I feel his fame seems to be localized to Australia, and most of his supporters seem to be from the region. While he does have a few other sources, they are mainly political blogs from the 2008 election that mention the video, and most just highlight Atkin in passing.

Ultimately I feel that since the video wasn't notable enough to have its own article, it creator isn't notable enough to have his own either. Doing so will only set a precedent for other one-off video creators in the future. Further, the the video's popularity has diminished greatly since the election, and it seems that all notoriety was limited to the election period. Lastly, while Atkin video did get some buzz from political blogs at the time, most of his popularity came from Australia where he was considered a local celebrity for creating it. Vasant56 (talk) 16:47, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We dont need an article for each internet phenom; these videos might be notable but the person isn't. Letsdrinktea (talk) 17:36, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of reliable sources. Incidentally, notability does not come with an expiration date. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 19:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with you 100% that notability does not come with an expiration date, and we should be careful not to make that mistake. With that said, however, hindsight and time lets you re-evaluate situations and allow you to judge notability in terms of the 'big picture' :-) Vasant56 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I noticed that video itself that has been used to justify Atkin's notability was up for discussion a few months ago and was deemed not notable enough to have it's own entry on Wikipedia. The article was subsequently merged into another article listing different parodies on the Rick Roll. If the video itself isn't considered worthy of its own article, is its author? Vasant56 (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 23 February 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) 00:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has plenty of sources indicating ongoing notability. Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Capitalistroadster (talk) 01:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only one of the third-party sources is an article about Atkin. WP:N requires multiple third-party sources. Powers ^T 01:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - grrrr, I hate memes and viral videos but this guy comes extremely well sourced and cited. Blast! §FreeRangeFrog 01:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, there are multiple third-party sources, but they are about the video, not the person. Need more coverage about the person to justify creation of a separate article. fuzzy510 (talk) 03:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Barack Roll. There are enough 3rd party articles to justify an article on the Internet meme and it would seem there's enough info in them to include stuff about the meme's originator. So let them be in the same article. Ancemy (talk) 03:24, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rick Roll. THF (talk) 22:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even if all those news sources mentioned his video, and not him at all, there is still his television appearance. "He appeared on ABC television political program Insiders on 16 March 2008 as part of the "Talking Pictures" segment.[4]" So he had at least that coverage of him. Dream Focus 03:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well it was an appearance. I'm not sure whether that qualifies as "coverage". Powers ^T 03:21, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The ABC is the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, not the major network ABC. Vasant56 (talk) 03:43, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Uh, Atkin is Australian, and ABC is a major network there. Powers ^T 12:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, I agree with that. I only meant that people might confuse it for the American Broadcasting Company. While the election was a US election, it looks like most of the 'coverage' on him didn't break the Australian border. Vasant56 (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weakest of Weak Keeps, most of the coverage seems to be about the videos rather than the person, but Atkin seems to have made enough of them to get just enough coverage himself that he probably crosses the WP:N bar. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- But if his video itself isn't worthy of a wikipedia page is he? Perhaps we just just mention him in passing in the Barack Roll's section on the Rick Roll page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.14.148.114 (talk) 09:38, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd say he's probably better known for the Kevin Rudd/Chairman Mao video. I know I've seen and laughed at that, but not at the Barack/Rickroll one. So a redirect would be inappropriate, because there's no one good target to redirect to. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:32, 1 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Keep - ongoing notability and article doesn't mention the Kevin Rudd satires during hte last election. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lonelygirl16 (talk • contribs) 10:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There seem to be enough references to demonstrate notability. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 16:58, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Uh, which ones, exactly? Powers ^T 21:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to a section of Rickroll, or alternatively delete. This is not a keep vote. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the cited sources, the person is clearly not notable, and his video is only notable enough to serve as a footnote for a larger internet phenomenon. This does not deserve its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Potatolicious (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and tag for expansion per the additional available sources, as being more than one-event and no need by some (no offense) to treat Australia as if it were a backwater, as coverage by their press about one of their citizens for an initial and sunseqhent actions as good enough. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:10, 3 March 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Garrison Courtney

This is a vanity page. Nothing is cited. I can't find anything on the DEA website that identifies Courtney as: "Chief of Public Affiars." Pilkington1984(talk) This user is an SPA created to file deletion process, see Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984 --Abd (talk) 16:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)][reply]

This is a courtesy renomination. The article was originally placed incorrectly on WP:MFD. Zetawoof_(ζ) 08:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: How about this ("Garrison Courtney, Section Chief, Public Affairs, DEA")? Plus 411 Google News hits suggesting notability. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete: Gonzonoir, these links prove that he does exist, but he is not mentioned in the Drug Enforcement Administration article or any of the other linked articles. The DEA website has no bio information on Garrison Courtney. This article reads like a resume and links to no secondary sources providing evidence of notability. The article also contains no citations to verify the claims it makes. This edit I have striken was unsigned, it was by Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81, who is clearly the nominator, who began by vandalizing Garrison Courtney. --Abd (talk) 16:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC) [reply]

- Unstricken - If you believe the IP editor is a sockpuppet, you are free to open a sockpuppet case. But you should ot arbitrarily strike out another editor's comments without positive proof. As an IP editor, the opionion expressed may be given less weight in this dicsussion, but it is the closing administrator's duty to review and cosnider as appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 17:40, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The identity of the two editors is so blatant that SSP isn't needed, unless Whpq wishes to contest it. I'd suggest looking at the edit histories, as pointed to above in my smallnote, and at my comment on Talk here, and at the current AN/I report on this issue, which is quite explicit (at the top). Please don't disrupt Wikipedia by beating dead horses. They are the same editor. --Abd (talk) 20:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree the article as it stands is pretty poor, but it's clear this guy is a prominent spokesperson for the department. His name's in so many press sources because he's the department's contact to the press. My understanding of how WP:BIO relates to unelected officials could be better, so I don't know for sure whether that qualifies him for notability, but I'd lean yes (with scope to be convinced otherwise if someone can quote me a relevant section of the rules). He's the public face of the department, in some sense. Gonzonoir (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there are no articles about him. That he is a spokesperson means his name will appear frequently but those are passing mentions. -- Whpq (talk) 14:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - notability is demonstrated by by over 400 newspaper articles in which he is mentioned. Esasus (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - but none of them are about him. Being mentioned a lot doeesn't equate to notability. -- Whpq (talk) 00:29, 27 February 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, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless we can find any material from reliable third-party sources that enables a biography to be written about him rather than articles which mention his name but are about other topics. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ There are no are no secondary sources that address him directly in enough detail to meet wikipedia's notability requirements. He has not received "significant coverage" outside of this very article which is composed of piecemeal data.Pilkington1984 (talk) 03:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC) strike revote by nominator, who is an SPA registered to attempt deletion of this article, see Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984 and who began by vandalizing the article, see Special:Contributions/216.15.36.81.--Abd (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yes, he does work for the DEA. Does that have anything to do with our notability requirements? No. Dlabtot (talk) 04:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep chief of public affairs for the DEA or any other national agency of similar importance is a notable position. DGG (talk) 05:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yes, he's a spokesperson for the DEA. Yes, I consider it a notable position, yet I'm still voting delete.

DEA official web site --> top domain, not independent, bad source

News from DEA - News Releases --> Again not independent and it is the news releases with just his name on them.

The University of Montana Broadcast Journalism Department --> Site search on Courtney's name yielded zero results, only tangentally related.

LinkedIn: Garrison Courtney --> Not a reliable source.

Virginia Association of Museums Annual Conference - March 25 to 28, 2006 - Speaker Biographies PDF (46 KiB) --> dead link

Northern Network News - April 20, 2007 PDF (132 KiB) --> Finally! A good source, but it's short.

My conclusion is that there are too few reliable sources to build a biography with. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like something might be broken with the site search for the UM Broadcast Journalism Department. He's got a listing in the Alumni Association. I didn't take the link out, but someone might. He did graduate there, class of 2000. --Abd (talk) 01:00, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep per above. Ikip (talk) 10:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Passing mentions do not create notability. Nothing to write an article about beyond the job title; as a spokesperson, he doesn't even have attributable views, since he's simply speaking on behalf of the department. WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. THF (talk) 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Courtney was the editor of NoMoCo. Vegetationlife (talk) 23:46, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Being the editor of a student journal at an extremely minor school is not a claim of notability. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, it doesn't establish notability. The DEA position does, plus there is RS on his work for Katherine Harris; the editorship of NoMoCo is simply an independently-sourced fact. The article now has sources, nobody had bothered. (Still far from perfect, but there is enough source for a stub bio.) Please, how does an "extremely minor school" differ from a "minor school," or, for that matter, from a "school" that's part of a state university system? Or is this just AfD hyperbole? --Abd (talk) 01:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DGG. Versus22_talk 01:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No matter his title, he is simply a contact person for the press. His name is at the bottom of DEA press releases, but there is no biographical information coming from the DEA. What is the merit of all the trivial background info in this article? The article was largely created by a single user!Pilkington1984 (talk) 06:58, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This appears to be your second !vote in the relisting. Rlendog (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. His name appears in many places due to the nature of his job, but none of the coverage is about him. Passing mention only doesn't establish notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 09:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per DGG. As to objections re vanity, single editor creating, all that, so stub it, already. We should not be deleting articles on notable individuals, just because they are Bad articles, we should be fixing them. I've largely stopped fixing articles up for AfD because half the time the article vanishes anyway. If I did the work now, would that affect the !votes above? Maybe, more likely not. If the closing admin takes it into consideration. That happens sometimes. Sometimes not. --Abd (talk) 23:14, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I did add some references to the article, and took out one snippet re the DEA Museum. From the accuracy of the rest of the article, I think that's probably correct, but it's unclear what the "involvement" is. In spite of the nomination claim, it's easy to find sources for "Section Chief, Public Affairs, DEA." For example, see News from DEA, January 10, 2008, reporting that Courtney was "on location" in Detroit for filming of DEA, a reality show produced by Spike TV. --Abd (talk) 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - The "ease" at finding sources isn't demonstrated with your example. At issue is notability. The Spike TV bit above is a press release. Furthermore, the claim that the PR piece reported him "on location" is blown completely out of proportion. The only mention of him is that he is the press contact on location in Detroit. That's not even in the main body of the press release. As for the references in trhe article as of this version, we have:

A press release which establishes his position. It verifies a fact but does not establish notability.
Alumni announcement from his university. Again, it verifies facts but does not establish notbility.
A news article from the Sarasota Herald Tribune. It has 3 sentences about him in the article text (counting his quote), and one item in the timeline summary. However, he is not the primary subject of the article, and the coverage is not significant.
A brief tid-bit in the MSU newspaper. This is like the alumni notice. It doesn't do much to establish notability.

-- Whpq (talk) 11:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Spike TV press release was not used to establish notability, but the title, as Whpq agrees. My point about the title is that the nomination raised the issue, and the implication there was that this might be peacock or exaggeration, a theme picked up by one !vote which raised the issue of a single editor creating the article (isn't that what usually happens, absent mountains of attention?). No, he's the Section Chief, all right. Now, is that a notable position? If so, we should have an article on the position, or on the person holding it. I prefer the former, in this case; that article then would have a short bio for any such person who held the position, if they don't already have their own article. In other words, Merge would be fine with me, as well as Keep. If we Merge, then the original article, which might have more detail, is there in history for anyone who wishes to see it. Keep until and unless we have the position article. As argument for notability: Newspapers could easily cite a DEA press release, and I assume many do, without giving the name of the person issuing. Some of the sources apparently actually contacted Courtney. They find it of interest to their readers ("notable") who was responsible for the statement. Courtney does not merely issue press releases, he manages Public Affairs, which covers weightier matters, hence the Spike TV involvement, "on location."

It is also possible that merge would be to Drug Enforcement Administration. In that case, there would be a section on the Public Affairs officer, which would show the current holder and perhaps any notable previous holders. The name of Garrison Courtney is not infrequently in news reports. A reader may say, "I've seen that name before, who is that," and, turning to the most complete (and ultimately, reliable, we are getting there) organized source of information on the internet, looks up the name. Anything found? My work on the article was ito make it verifiable, not to establish notability. Is it a notable position? And, on that topic, I turn to you, dear community, for guidance. The !votes here are mixed with opinions about the person holding it. If it is a notable position, then our readers deserve, if nothing else, a redirect from the name of a holder to where we cover the position, and a short bio of the holder there, if not separately. Garrison Courtney is slightly notable because of Katherine Harris, and marginally notable because of the DEA position. I'd say that marginal notability is additive. Your call. --Abd (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The reason he is quoted is because he is the PR spokesperson. That happens with the DEA, as well as with corporations issuing press releases. These people are named as the point of contact specifically on press release. That's why they are being contacted. That's not notability. I'm still waiting to see the in-depth coverage of Garrison Courtney in reliable sources. I see a lot of opinions that he ought to be notable. Yet there isn't any proof. The strongest item to date is the tid-bit from his university newspaper. That is a very weak. -- Whpq (talk) 17:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. If someone !votes here who is an SPA with very short contribution history, it would normally be noted. So what about the nominator? Special:Contributions/Pilkington1984. This account exists totally to attack the article. Why did Zetawoof assist an SPA, creating disruption here, instead of simply closing the MfD or leaving it alone? Please, when being "helpful," be careful what you help! Of course, there is the barnstar.[42] --Abd (talk) 16:07, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, then, why did Ron Ritzman relist? Normally, an AfD like this would close as Keep or No Consensus. There is no principle that we need to argue until we find "consensus" on an AfD; rather, Keep is the default, and for good reason. Contentious debate on marginal notability is disruptive. For the record, neither Zetawoof or Ritzman are administrators, and non-admin closures should be non-controversial or clearly based in policy. Relisting an AfD before it has been closed? Why? Because you don't like the way it's going? --Abd (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The relisting was a red herring, for which I apologize. The problem was the original nomination, created here by Zetawoof. --Abd (talk) 21:28, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"The problem" was the original nomination on MFD. My moving it here was an obvious, uncontroversial bit of cleanup (which by no means required an administrator to carry out), and I really don't appreciate the attitude that I'm somehow at fault for doing so. Zetawoof_(ζ) 21:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When I do much less than this to assist a blocked editor, I get flak. Get over it or get out of the kitchen. "Cleanup" would have consisted in (1) removing the MfD, and (2), offering to assist the editor, which would mean taking responsibility for what you do, not simply dismissing it as "cleanup." First thing you should have checked: editor history, and you should have looked at the article itself and its edit history. From the nominator's history, in a matter of seconds, you'd have known to be suspicious. From the article history, you'd have seen the vandalism immediately. If you are comfortable with assisting a vandal to nominate the vandal's target for deletion, well, to me be my actions and to you yours. Enough said? --Abd (talk) 23:09, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did, in fact, look at the nominator's history and found nothing obviously amiss, as there was simply nothing there, and I see little value in assuming bad faith on the part of new users. I probably should have looked at the history page and caught the connection there; on the other hand, having (possibly?) vandalized an article does not immediately disqualify a user from nominating it for deletion, and there is at least some merit in the argument put forth (i.e, it's not an obvious bad-faith nom), seeing as how there are a number of users here who have seconded the deletion. Zetawoof_(ζ) 01:45, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per Esasus and DGG. Rlendog (talk) 22:47, 2 March 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 Nomination withdrawn (NAC) Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Anthony

I found this article during NPP and tried to reconfirm its data via Google, but I found nothing to confirm what is published here. I believe it may be a hoax, but I would like to get second opinions. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominated for deletion less than 2 hours after creation and likely a valid subject (see Princess Josephine of Baden). Mark as unsourced and give it a little time. JJL (talk) 01:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing nomination I subsequently did more digging and located a source that confirmed the subject's notability: [43]. The article has problems, including an incorrect title, but it can be saved. Thank you, JJL. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:34, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worldcom Public Relations Group

Unsourced spam about a non-notable PR firm. Doesn't PR and spam go together well? Miami33139 (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added a reference. The article already included a reference from a reliable source, although it is not specific enough to identify the article. -- Eastmain (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't look like WP:ADVERT to me, and company seems notable. LotLE×talk 22:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant news coverage found in a search or listed on the company's website. Added references are little more than references in business briefs and nowhere enough to meet notability. Flowanda | Talk 07:40, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:04, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to attract sufficient third party coverage for mine. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:22, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local coverage and news briefs in trade papers do not meet the test of substantial third party coverage. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:29, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UrbanWire

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:WEB. Schuym1 (talk) 00:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of substantial independent coverage. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Makes claims that are not backed up but there are numerous sources out there (as well as a lot of WP articles reference it). Once we get those in there I think the article is keepable. Valley2city^‽ 20:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has WP:COI problems, but it is definately notable. Yellowweasel (talk) 01:38, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 02:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Surnames and Gotras

An unsourced list of surnames allegedly related to the topic of Devrukhe Brahmins with no context or evidence of why these names might be notable. StarM 03:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- StarM 03:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak ~~keep~~ delete ~~for now as a fork for length/organization of Devrukhe~~ per below and more extensive searches at the mentioned AfD and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devrukhe Brahmins - List of Institutions founded by Devrukhes, but the several articles listed at the top of Devrukhe all need a closer look and reorganization. JJL (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Devrukhe Brahmins - Original 98 Villages, same author, similar topic. Just closed as delete for verifiability issues. StarM 02:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from the verifiability issues already highlighted, this also seems to be a case of listcruft, specifically items 1, 2, 4, 7 and 8. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 16:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Verifiavility and notability lacking. Also, per above comments. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 18:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete surnames who are a particular caste/religion? Nope. List of Roman Catholic surnames would never fly either. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:34, 2 March 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) 03:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Al Ciraldo

Neither the article nor its references establish notability for the subject. The only inline citation (Tech Timeline) proves only that he did, in fact, exist. The external link (ANAK) is to a website affiliated with Georgia Tech, the university at which Ciraldo commentated. In addition, the vast majority of the article is written from with the tone of a loving fan or a memorial service, not an encyclopedia. This is confirmed by the article having been created by "ToeMeetsLeather", one of Ciraldo's supposed catch phrases. --Cryptic C62 · Talk 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO and WP:ATHLETE and per Google giving no indication of WP:RS. -Lilac Soul ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 20:46, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Never heard of him...until this AfD. A quick look around seems to indicate sufficient notability to me. Invoked as a legend in articles about others too. This article needs time and effort, not deletion. Strong Keep. Frank | talk 20:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Frank | talk 20:56, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:Frank. Local legend with four decades of work as a public figure, plenty of reliable source coverage and a trademark sports call. Clearly notable sports announcer. Baileypalblue (talk) 22:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article appears to meet WP:RS standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be enough sources to warrant writing an article about him. Capitalistroadster (talk) 00:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as sources do exist, enough to make him notable. Tavix (talk) 01:15, 27 February 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. MBisanz ^talk 04:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Written In Ashes

No assertion of notability. Doesn't meet our criteria for inclusion. Searched Google / Google News. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: MySpace band. No independent 3rd party sources. JamesBurns (talk) 00:01, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet WP:BAND standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the above, it fails WP:BAND. Enigma^msg 05:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone above -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for being "once hailed as the new wave of Gothic music" (The Oregonian, [44]), and some coverage ([45][46][47][48][49][50]). Icewedge (talk) 01:02, 3 March 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) Erik9 (talk) 17:10, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shashi prabhu and associates

A Google News search is not turning up evidence that this subject meets WP:CORP standards. Pastor Theo (talk) 23:25, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Salih (talk) 07:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Spam. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 03:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a well-known architecture firm in India. Although WP:ORG would appear to be the appropriate guideline for notability, in this case, I would argue that WP:CREATIVE is more fitting. As an architectural firm, they would be noted for their projects. There is this substantial Times of India article specifically about the firm's founder. Articles about various significant projects such as the Wankhede Stadium include the firm or the founder in the article, such as this one, and in particular, this article describes him as "noted architect Shashi Prabhu". -- Whpq (talk) 13:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first article is about Mr. Prabhu, but not about his company -- the article being discussed for deletion is about the company. The second article that is cited only mentions Mr. Prabhu in a single sentence. Pastor Theo (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Aitias // discussion 00:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Whether Mr. Prabhu is notable or not, this company most certainly isn't. It fails every guideline we have for companies and organizations. A shame the original prod was removed, because it never should've made it this far. Enigma^msg 05:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Shashi Prabhu Convinced by the comments below. Enigma^msg 05:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename to Shashi Prabhu The article could do with less focus on the company and more on the architect, but designing notable buildings is part of what makes an architect notable. Since the first article is about Prabhu it's a perfect source. The second is too. It doesn't matter how long the mention is, it matters what it says. (To name an extreme example: If you have an article that mentions Barack Obama in one sentence but that sentence states he is the US president, it's still a relevant source) - Mgm|^(talk) 09:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Here is some more evidence of notability as an architect. This article identifies him as "renowned architect Shashi Prabhu", and this article is all about the design of Wankhede stadium quoting him about its design. And as Mgm points out, if the issue is that these are focused on the man and not the company, then we can simply rename the article. -- Whpq (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per MacGyverMagic. He appears notable and I got a lot of relevant Google hits. The articles linked by Whpq seem to be good evidence of notability as well. -FaerieInGrey (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have edited this article, disenspamifying it to some extent and adding some references. These are some large building projects. pablo_hablo.
Keep and rename per Mgm - the article should bear his name only as his seems to be the credit on his company's works. pablo_hablo. 23:44, 27 February 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.