Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 June 8

< 7 June	9 June >

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 Procedural close. This 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 04:38, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Orosco Anonam

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

Keep Unbelievible, I just have no idea why Jimbo online has put this article up for deletion, I was always under the impression that a player who hs played international football, such as this one was noticable enough, he will probably be putting a deletion tag on David Beckham next Stew jones (talk) 07:07, 8 June 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. لenna vecia 19:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darren Holmes (photographer)

This artist, while emerging, does not appear to be of encyclopedic notability. I could find few web results aside from the magazine interview already linked from the page and a couple of blogs. I really don't think he yet meets our criteria for inclusion. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —Beeblebrox (talk) 23:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Maybe notable someday in the future, not doesn't meet WP:BIO today. Creator's only edit is this article, makes me wonder if it's a autobiography.--RadioFan (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST, no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - he has a reasonable bibliography linked to "News" on http://www.darrenholmes.com/ with links to secondary sources, I checked some and they appear to be real. Passes WP:BIO, not with flying colours, but passes. Enki H. (talk) 04:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - news search reveals nothing. Obviously does good work, but notability not established. -- Scjessey (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very Weak Keep: Seems to barely squeak by WP:BIO, but it definitely needs more references.--It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nn photographer. Setwisohi (talk) 22:34, 12 June 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 Redirected by article creator to Madison Square Garden. Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994

Original research by synthesis. There is no inherent notability in the coincidence that an NBA and an NHL team representing the same city reached their respective league championship in the same season. The topic is effectively a mash-up of 1994 Stanley Cup Finals and 1994 NBA Finals. I'm also guessing that other North American leagues such as MLB, NFL, CFL, MLS, etc are excluded because they don't play their championships at the same time, thus not forming this trivial intersection. Also nominating Bulls–Blackhawks Finals series of 1992 for the same reason. Reso lute 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --DMG413 (talk) 00:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 23:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. —Reso lute 23:32, 8 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Alexander Sherwood

No assertion of notability whatsoever; fails WP:Creative. Blatant WP:COI issues with the article's self-promoting creator User:Rob sher. Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Petropoxy (Lithoderm Proxy) (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 23:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Petropoxy sums it all up precisely. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, as above. Johnuniq (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject's own profile on http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/4ns/studentDetails/Robert+Sherwood/83848 shows no indication of notability. Enki H. (talk) 03:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom...Modernist (talk) 04:10, 9 June 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. (don't see the point in leaving a redirect, seems an unlikely search term) Flowerparty^☀ 01:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richmond extensions of the Central Line

The information in this article has been shown to be false. None of the supposedly proposed stations could be verified, and the articles for them deleted (follow red links in the main article), so there is no reason for this article to exist. Atama ^chat 22:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- Atama ^chat 22:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources. We don't have to prove it's a hoax; anyone wanting to keep the article needs to prove it is not. Johnuniq (talk) 03:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the article lacks references to support the article's veracity. I declined the speedy request since the article is not a blatant and outrageously implausible hoax, it is conceivable that old proposals don't make their way into internet sources, although they are probably not notable if they never went past the proposal stage. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but not as a hoax. The Central Line article already covers this with references, and here's confirmation from TFL that this was proposed. There's no need for a separate article when this is covered much better at Central Line. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'll concede it might not have been a hoax; I know that the author has been accused of adding intentionally inaccurate information in other articles and I hadn't been able to confirm the information in this one. I still stand by this deletion, however, since the article is essentially a list of links to other articles (see WP:LIST) yet almost all of the articles have been deleted. Also, as Phil Bridger has pointed out this subject is covered adequately in the Central Line article already. -- Atama ^chat 16:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:CRYSTAL. Unsourced example of future. Sebwite (talk) 19:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Central Line as useful search term. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Central Line#Richmond extensions as there is nothing additional to merge (although I would not stand in the way of a consensus to merge). It is conceivable that there will in future be enough that can be said about this topic to merit more than a section, but there isn't at the moment. Thryduulf (talk) 21:49, 12 June 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. This does not preclude users from proposing or performing mergers, redirects, or other editorial actions as appropriate. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Betty Jefferson

Per WP:BLP1E. Subject is notable only in connection with a news event. Doesn't pass WP:BIO as a local politician and there appear to be no reliable sources other than those pertaining to the criminal case. Otto4711 (talk) 22:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Angela Coleman and Brenda Jefferson Foster to this nomination. They are even less notable than Jefferson, being known solely for their involvement in the criminal case and not having even the local politician aspect. All three were de-prodded with an unsubstantiated assertion of notability. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Nothing in the article shows she is notable. An elected assessor does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Notability is not inherited from her brother. One event, being accused of a crime, does not make her notable. The 3 taken together do no make her notable either. The others are not notable either. A new name 2008 (talk) 23:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Betty Jefferson: Retain - Betty Jefferson is a prominent elected official in a big city. That she is involved in a controversial court case is an additional reason for keeping the article although perhaps the litigation information can be consolidated or redirected to an article about the racketeering case.
Angela Coleman: Change - Consolidate or redirect to an article about the racketeering case.
Brenda Jefferson Foster: Change likewise - Consolidate or redirect to an article about the racketeering case. Rammer (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I went back and looked a second time for info on Betty Jefferson that has nothing to do with her indictment, but can not find anything that would say she is notable. Do you have any sources that says she is a prominent elected official? A new name 2008 (talk) 01:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - They are still members of an influencial family involved with several different community enterprises and scandals. There should at least be a page on the larger Jefferson Family. Rockules318 (talk) 12:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - User:A new name 2008 is apparently asking me—Rammer (talk) 23:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)—to turn back the calendar and to find sites about the most-famous Orleans Parish Assessor which do not mention the indictment. Any such sites are anachronistic now, if they haven't been pulled. But here are three:[reply]

New Orleans League of Women Voters site on Betty Jefferson

Orleans Parish Board of Assessors site on Betty Jefferson

Louisiana Assessors Association site on Betty Jefferson

The second and third sources are simply identifying her as an elected assessor and the first is a brief questionnaire. No one is disputing that she is an elected official. What is in dispute is whether she meets WP:POLITICIAN or WP:GNG. None of these establish her as meeting any standard. Otto4711 (talk) 19:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not asking you to do anything, You said she "is a prominent elected official in a big city." When I looked for sources that discussed her I could not find anything to back that up and was wondering if you had any sources for your contention. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Combine Entire Jefferson Family, There should be an entire page to discuss the members of this influencial family in New Orleans. Rockules318 (talk) 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:BLP. I would also suggest adding Mose Jefferson to this AfD. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Retain all but perhaps in a consolidated article. After the courts declare them not guilty, deletion will make more sense. Right now, the names and the issues involved are just too notable. In the last 3 days the article on Betty Jefferson has had 2403 hits; Brenda Jefferson Foster, 2355; Angela Coleman, 2348. But if you're going to delete them along with Mose, then why not delete Renée Gill Pratt too? Rammer (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, how do you know how many hits an article gets? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Put the (any) article on your screen. Press the History tab. Click on "Page view statistics." You will get a box displaying the hits on that article (the one that's on your screen), usually for the prior calendar month. Use the down arrow on the date window within the box to switch the month to the one you want to examine and hit the button.

For the article on "Betty Jefferson" in 2009 June, the hits display is at http://stats.grok.se/en/200906/Betty_Jefferson . From there you can simply change the article name in the box and get another article’s hits for that month. Observe that the hits are counted only for the formulation you use of the article name. Thus "Renée Gill Pratt" gives the hits for the version with the acute accent, and "Renee Gill Pratt" gives the hits from users who used just the plain “e” in her given name.

This service is provided by user:Henrik, a gallant Swede and modern-day Viking. Rammer (talk) 17:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find "page view statistics". Is this something added by a special tool? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So the article should be deleted if found not guilty, then she must not be that notable except for the one event. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A neat tour de force in argument, and I do admire your intelligence and wit. But only Angela, Brenda, and Mose are subject to deletion on that basis. Betty and Renée, on the other hand, have, like William J., been elected officials. You can hardly find sites nowadays which mention their prior noteworthiness exclusively without bringing up the recent allegations. No one has a way of knowing, right now, whether any of these individuals will be found guilty, the American view being a presumption of innocence until proven (in court) otherwise. But people "out there" still want to know the facts as of the present, and that is where WP is of wonderful (and, I hope, objective) utility and service. A growing concern, however, is that the body of indicier involving that cluster of individuals is, to a large extent, the same; thus rather than to repeat it in various articles, one consolidated article (or articles) on the trials may save overall space in WP while simultaneously doing a better job of helping readers understand the alleged networking. Rammer (talk) 18:12, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I must have misunderstood what you said. I was responding to your statement "Retain all but perhaps in a consolidated article. After the courts declare them not guilty, deletion will make more sense." This appeared to mean that deletion would make sense if they were found not guilty. But if that is not what you meant, I apologize. I still have not seen anything that leads me to believe that any of them are notable. Their names are in the news because of the indictment, but that does not make them notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was said somewhere of Calvin Coolidge that it wasn't that Coolidge did nothing as president but that he did it better than anyone had ever done it.

Being in office made or makes our Jeffersons notable. The allegations that while there they did things they were not supposed to do only increases the need to profile them. At least no one ever alleged that Calvin was crooked. (There was, however, some question, per Will Rogers, about whether he was dead.)

But behold below the wisdom of Jennavecia. Now there's a lady with good sense.

Rammer (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect all relevant articles into an article on the event per BLP1E. لenna vecia 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into one article about the entire subject matter. Keeper | 76 03:08, 16 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:59, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada–Togo relations

This is a non-notable topic. The text is lifted from a Canadian government website: [1] but omits the first sentence of the page which states, "Bilateral relations between Canada and Togo are limited." as well as other statements minimizing the relationship.

Confirming this assertion of non-notability by the Canadian government itself, I have been unable to find other, independent resources dealing with the subject of Canada-Togo relations. Therefore the article does not meet Wikipedia's standard for inclusion which requires significant in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources for the subject to be notable. Drawn Some (talk) 22:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one small paragraph and there dose not seem to be any real notability to the topic, i'm surprised i did not get tagged when it was first created. Kyle1278 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Drawn Some notes, the only link says "Bilateral relations between Canada and Togo are limited". The article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. Fails WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 03:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Klein zach 04:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absurdly trivial and unsubstantial. Eusebeus (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not very notable, but relations between countries, however small, seems notable enough. There are plenty of other articles on countries separated by similar size and distance. --DMG413 (talk) 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Bilateral relations are not inherently notable. Like every other topic, it needs to have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," before it can be "presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Not seeing any such coverage in this case. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice: It has been suggested that AFDs and other discussions on this and similar articles be suspended. Please have your say on this at Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable sources discuss the mooted topic of this article in any depth.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is nothing notable about their limited relationship. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another mindless combinatorial article (if x is notable and y is notable then the intersect of x and y isn't necessarily notable). This on is particularly absurd. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:25, 15 June 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. Jamie^☆S93 21:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rosearik Rikki Simons

Only trivial and primary sources found. Has a couple notable roles, a couple comics, and a couple ties to Jhonen Vasquez, but not really enough to pass WP:N. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability (I checked each link). Fails WP:ARTIST. Johnuniq (talk) 03:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neither article nor artist's own site indicate notability. Enki H. (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is not established. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 15 June 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 WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 17:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009

User:TJ Spyke thinks this shouldn't have an article, but I either think otherwise or believe that there is no consensus for us not having this article

I kept reverting his redirects to History of E3, so I decided to take it here for further action.. ViperSnake151 Talk 21:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this article does not appear to go against Wikipedia's Deletion Policy except for the fact that it might not be notable enough. However, E3 in general is a very important event in the gaming industry and a lot happened at this year's E3. There is also a lot of information about the event at the "Electronic Entertainment Expo 2009" article. Therefore, I suggest that the article be kept. [b]However[/b], if this AfD ends with a delete, I propose that the relevant section at "History of E3" be expanded to provide details on third-party companies such as EA, Konami, Square Enix and Ubisoft. It may, however, be that this information would be better suited if the event had its own article. In any case, I [b]strongly suggest[/b] that details about third-parties be mentioned in some form. --Super Shy Guy Bros.Not shy? 22:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The E3 event is the largest annual event in the arena of video game news, and this years being a return to previous form provided a large amount of notable information even by E3 standards. I fear merging this article would remove a great deal of relevant and useful information. (As usually happens when articles are merged). Rayfire (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A news event is considered notable if it receives significant, continual coverage in sources with national or global scope. E3 2009 undoubtedly meets all the necessary notability requirements:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/0,28757,1902700,00.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/arts/television/09games.html?_r=1

http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20090512-904413.html

http://search.bbc.co.uk/search?q=e3

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8084416.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8080698.stm

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/01/e3.video.games.preview/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/06/02/e3.nintendo.sony/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/ptech/07/11/e3.2008/index.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/02/AR2009060202946.html

http://e3.gamespot.com

http://e3.gamespot.com/story/6211701/e3-2009-wrap-up

http://e3.ign.com/

http://games.ign.com/articles/992/992019p1.html

http://games.ign.com/articles/988/988485p1.html

The list can go on and on. It seems that the event was covered by almost every major news organization in the world. — Rankiri (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An Notable event. So if one user think this article should not exist and must be deleted who do you think you are to imply your own rules?. The articles pass Notability does not fail any Wikipedia Policy that iam aware of. --SkyWalker (talk) 04:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per enormity of event. Thanks for all that work Rankiri! ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 06:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep E3 2009 is an amazing event and one that should not be forgotten soon due to the enormity of its scale and there really is no reason to remove it .KiasuKiasiMan (talk) 07:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly speedy keep. One of the most notable events of the year on the video-gaming calendar. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 9 June 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. Passes WP:MUSIC per sources found. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Analog Pussy

Fails WP:MUSIC, no sources found. Speedy declined because it survived an AFD four years ago, based entirely on WP:ILIKEIT !votes. This crap has sat around that long without a single good source?! Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Weak keep (for the duo) ~~No independent sources.~~ Seems like there are a few independent sources that are specifically about the duo. (Not sure about the quality/importance of the sources though.) --RegentsPark (My narrowboat) 21:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't find any independent sources, fails GNG and music specific guidelines. A new name 2008 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Nothing more to add to nom. Trevor Marron (talk) 22:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - say what? AP is huge in the global goa/psytrance scene, same level as e.g. Astral Projection. I need to go make dinner (mmm, tacos!), but will find sources after. //roux 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sources found: Allmusic, Montreal Mirror, Edge Boston, LA Weekly. Therefore the band is/are notable. The previous AFD doesn't seem to have many WP:ILIKEIT !votes, for what it's worth. The article really needs someone to improve it using sources, then perhaps it wouldn't be "crap". This doesn't come close to being a speedy candidate, the previous AFD is clear from the first page of article history, has been noted on the talk page since 2006, and re-adding a {{db-band}} tag after another editor has removed it is simply unacceptable. Where's that WP:TROUT...?.--Michig (talk) 20:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The album articles could go though, with the exception of Trance N Roll for which I found 2 reviews - tracklisting, "X is an album by Y", plus decorative cover art isn't enough to make an article.--Michig (talk) 20:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: per above's refs. Needs to be added to article. As it stood originally, was a good AfD candidate. --It's me...Sallicio!^{$\color {Red}\oplus$} 23:44, 11 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ben and Arthur

Does not seem to be notable per WP: Notability (film). All the sources cited are either IMDb, youtube or Facebook. I don't see any real coverage in independent reliable sources. Most ghits are forums or such sites. Indeed, the article admits "Although the film has not officially been reviewed by any movie critic of a major newspaper..." Unless there is coverage in reliable sources, I don't think the fact that lots of people who bought it think its bad makes it notable. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 20:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as no independant or reliable sources to indicate any notability for film or creators. Looks like a home made film, with an attempt to use wikipedia to make it into an "hilarious" internet meme.Yob Mod 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - despite the extensive sourcing, there is no evidence for notability. There is no indication of awards, significant critical review, or coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - sold at major online outlets - Amazon, etc. Has attained a cult following as one of the worse "queer" films ever, or of any film, for that matter, a "camp classic". There are lots of useful sources. This can be rescued. Bearian (talk) 17:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because you can buy it does not make it notable, especially as the sellers you can buy it from on Amazon are not actually Amazon merchants but independent outlets, who aren't necessarily "major". If, however, you can demonstrate actual "cult following" through independent reliable sources, then please go ahead! I will then be more than happy to withdraw this AfD. Mr_pand [talk | contributions] 21:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. A couple of sources (other than imdb or youtube which is what the article relies on at present): [2], [3]. It does appear to have some credence as "worse gay film ever". I personally wouldn't think there's quite enough for notability, but there may be more sources that I didn't find. Quantpole (talk) 22:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a good article here. Sam Mraovich, the director/writer/cinematographer etc, is considered the modern Ed Wood, the film hovers toward the top spot of the worst films at IMDB and is likely widely considered the worst LGBT film ever. Based on this we have to do a near-reverse in standard source searching one would for a film that is liked. Some sourcwes that may help; "Ben & Arthur: The Worst Gay Movie of All Time", "It’s A Living: DVD/Video Reviews" by Michael D. Klemm, "IMDB Says 'Disaster Movie' is the Worst Movie of All Time", "A.M.Stir: Cinematic wasteland", "Paris Hilton's 'Hottie' Voted Worst Film Ever", " Out Films: Reviews". -- Banjeboi 00:27, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but it needs a major sandblasting to conform to MOS. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced as to notability, my only query is whether anything would survive the 'sandblasting', in which case it may be easier to delete and start again. Quantpole (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - ? But then someone would be attempting to recreate a deleted topic. Better to see what can be done with what exists. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 17:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Benjiboi's remarks above. This thing's a monstrosity though --- needs tons of work. Bigdaddy1981 (talk) 23:22, 15 June 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 G12 as copyvio, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Obama Beach

Wikipedia is not news. Also seems to be a bit of a joke page. 37 miles 53 chains (talk) 20:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A slip of the tongue is notable? In the case of the Rev Spooner, a succession of them (actually widely disputed) gave notability. Who amongst us hasn't done it? Now, if Obama had referred to Gordon Brown Beach, I might take more notice... Peridon (talk) 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G12 as copyvio of the URL at the bottom. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:05, 8 June 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 Etobicoke. (decide what "section" header to use to further clarify the redirect, of course) Keeper | 76 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Norseman Junior Middle School

It isn't notable enough to meet the requirements of WP:N. Jupiter.solarsyst.comm.arm.milk .universe 20:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Etobicoke#Education per precedent. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —Cunard (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Etobicoke#Education, obviously. TerriersFan (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Etobicoke#Norseman Junior Middle School (heading would be created). Standard on Wikipedia for listing middle schools in a system. Sebwite (talk) 18:40, 11 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roman K. Kovalev

Non-notable academic. The list of publications is deceiving -- the italics give the impression they are books, when in fact most are articles (and some are merely book reviews). Google scholar search gives *very* low citation figures. A Gnews search provides precious little as well. This one survived AfD in 2006, but it's not clear what the basis for the keep votes was, and I don't think it meets WP:PROF as currently formulated. Recent Prod was declined on procedural grounds (having survived previous AfD). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Few hits on google scholar, no references, no third party sources establishing notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I prodded this article a few days ago and was convinced he failed WP:PROF. As near as I can tell he has an h-index of 0. Certainly it is in the sigle digits. Since the last AfD he has edited an $197 book (designed to be purchased by interested libraries, I imagine) The Other Europe in the Middle Ages: Avars, Bulgars, Khazars and Cumans (East Central and Eastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 450-1450. He has also translated some things. He does good work, and his field is filled with thankless tasks, but all of the keep arguments in the previous AfD would be considered wrong now. Joey the Mango (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a notable scholar (the first to publish on the Spillings Horde) whose article has already survived an AFD in roughly its present form. Please respect established consensus and stop gaming the system with repititous AFDs. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Personal attack. I don't think any of the people here were involved with the previous AfD, which was back in Feb 2006. I for one discovered your article by Google searching for assistant professors. In the intervening three years Kovalev has not advanced far enough to meet the increasingly stricter WP:PROF, and I think the previous AfD reached the wrong conclusion even then. The Spillings Horde is only mentioned in two articles; this is one of them. Joey the Mango (talk) 21:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the new book is published by Brill, the leading specialty publisher for the subject at Brill's customary prices. Though only published last year, it is already in 71 US/Canada/australian libraries according to worldcat, which is about as much as can be expected for the subject--it includes every major research library one would expect. Book reviews for books of this sort tend to come 2 or 3 years after the book--archeologists are the slowest to publish of all academic fields. There are actually considerably more papers and other minor publications than listed in the article, which seems to include only those in Western languages--including the Russian ones, WorldCat shows 43. He does seem to be a leading authority in the subject. I think I will read the book, & its a rare author I work on here that i actually think that. :)

The nominator is using the same criteria he would in the sciences, & they do not apply. This is not a personal attack, but a collegial criticism of his methodology which I & others have told him privately when he started on the group of deletions. . I've been here working on this subject the whole period since the first AfD, and WP:PROF has not gotten stricter, merely better established. How the ~~nominator~~ commentator above thinks its a new strictness I cannot tell, since he only started nominating these articles for deletion one week ago, and only joined WP on May 29, 2009. That he's new here is shown by his using the argument that the subject of his study is unimportant because WP does not have many articles on it. Actually, that's a reflection of our cultural and intellectual bias. At WP, we can tell each other that we're wrong without it being personal, and throwing around No Personal Attack at the slightest criticism does not contribute to cooperative decision making. DGG (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification that I as nominator for this AfD am not the person DGG is referring to here; I understand DGG's general concerns, but in this case I happen to think that the editor who proposed it for deletion is correct in concluding Kovalev is not notable. He appears to write a lot, but his work is not cited. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected my statement--I carelessly assumed it from remembering the prod. My comments do not of course apply to you. I'll agree it is not easy to show notability in archeology, because of the extremely specialized nature of most of the work and the unhelpful peculiar publication patterns alluded to, and good people can differ with respect to where to draw the line. My apologies DGG (talk) 23:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have cheerfully admitted on my talk page that I cycle through accounts for personal reasons. I am the Nathan Brazil of Wikipedia. Joey the Mango (talk) 00:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. What are your personal reasons, who is Nathan Brazil and what is his relevance? This information will be useful in assessing what authority to give to your edits on these pages. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

AfDs are to be assessed on their merits. I explained on my talk page. Google will explain the Nathan Brazil allusion. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's as clear as mud to me. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

AfDs are to be considered on their merits, unless they are disruptive, and I didn't even nominate this one. Joey the Mango (talk) 03:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

O.K., but what has Nathan Brazil got to do with it? Xxanthippe (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

He is a character in the Well of Souls series by that "talented hack" Jack L. Chalker who is immortal and has many (sequential) identities, not because he is trying to hide, but because his memory is full. Joey the Mango (talk) 04:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is what WP:PROF looked like at the time of the previous AfD. Joey the Mango (talk) 01:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We can't just hope that one day reliable sources treating the subject will be published and be patient because "archeologists are the slowest to publish". We must remember that we are dealing with a biography of a living person and the content of the article must be verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 23:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sorry, DGG, because I know you like to keep articles about genuine scholars, but I'm really not seeing how Roman K. Kovalev is notable.
Interestingly, while I was researching this AfD, I did discover that Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on Judith Jesch. (I was comparing google scholar citation counts, and I selected Jesch as my benchmark for an unquestionably notable dark age archaeologist. She's got rather a lot more citations than poor Kovalev.)
I think if there's a drive to improve Wikipedia's coverage of dark age archaeologists, we'd be better off starting with her.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether Jesch does or does not have an article (and I think she should) has no bearing on whether Kovalev is notable. Your criteria make no sense whatsoever. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contribution.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 21:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No third party sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Productive scholar, well on his way to WP notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

"well on his way to notability" can be interpreted to mean "not notable yet". Abductive (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote exactly what I meant, no more, no less. Note: Abductive previously edited this page under the name of Joey the Mango. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:01, 11 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Not notable by WP:BIO or WP:PROF or any other standard we have. Even the people saying keep or arguing on behalf of the article are admitting he isn't notable. Drawn Some (talk) 23:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per those above. Insufficiently referenced, notability not established per BIO or PROF. Keep arguments are not convincing. لenna vecia 20:31, 15 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Berman

No reliable sources found, only false positives for another person of the same name. Searching with various other keywords turned up only IMDb, TV.com and Invader Zim fansites. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:ENT. Johnuniq (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems that the internet hits are Wikipedia mirrors or unrelated to the subject. From what I can gather, Berman was a bit-actor in The Wonder Years and has no other claims to notability.Wikipeterproject (talk) 19:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Voicing a primary character in Invader Zim is a notable role, but not notable enough. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:17, 15 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Parsley

Vanity article created by unsuccessful election candidate. Besides the obvious conflict of interest, the subject has not held any national or regional office and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN. Coverage in reliable third party sources appears to be lacking. This is as close as it gets and as the BBC has, for reasons of fairness, profiled all candidates (there were only seven of them in Northern Ireland) it doesn't cut it as can be seen from the fact that the non-notable green candidate gets a similar candidate profile. Per countless previous discussions, just being a candidate is not in itself notable. Valenciano (talk) 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, almost tempted to Keep for the sheer name alone. However, he failed to get elected and therefore fails WP:POLITICIAN.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as the current deputy mayor he will be mayor of North Down next year. To be selected as the Alliance Party candidate for the whole of Northern Ireland he must be regarded as an up and coming prospect and likely to an MLA after the next assembly election. A quick look back through the Google news archive shows he was chair of Young Alliance in 2004 and director of the Ulster-Scots Academy in 2001.--Cavrdg (talk) 19:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mayor of a council covering 75,000 people is not in itself notable as this previous deletion debate on a former North Down Mayor shows and indeed the only other North Down Mayors who have articles are those who have been elected to regional assemblies. "Up and coming prospect" is covered by WP:NOTCRYSTAL - if he is elected MLA in future we can recreate the article then. Valenciano (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. I confirm what Vintagekits said: we can have an article after subject is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Johnuniq (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - while he has attracted a reasonable number of mentions in the press, only the BBC article seems to cover him in any detail. None of the roles he has held is sufficient evidence of notability on its own. Combined, he's clearly an important figure in the Alliance Party, but I'm not convinced that it really adds up to sufficient notability for an article, at present. It seems entirely plausible that he will assume a position which does convey notability (MLA or one of the key posts in the Alliance), but we're not a crystal ball, and can easily re-create an article if that happens. Warofdreams talk 12:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable politician. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reliable independnet sources about the subject of a blp and that might establish him as notable, as is manifestly the case here, means no blp.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This does indeed seem like a vanity article or an article started as a joke (look at the first three contributions). The subject is not notable. I do note that Parsley ran in the European election. The second lowest number of votes (5.5%)and a first round elimination. (From [BBC News]). Wikipeterproject (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no notability gained from his role as a local politician. Similarly, failing in a wider election is not a sign of notability. Nuttah (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. And the internal bun fights in the Alliance Party should serve to keep him out of the Assembly.Traditional unionist (talk) 09:35, 15 June 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 the snowball clause. Non-admin closure. MuZemike 18:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Big Green Tractor

Does not seem to fufill criteria for notability of songs Bonewah (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with this article! Why are you doing this? Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Asserts notability as a chart single, also contains sufficient sources for a standalone article. Alternatively, merge to the album until it's charted a bit higher. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Notability of songs seems to frown upon individual articles for songs. Merging to artist seems perfectly reasonable. Bonewah (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that bad comment, but this article just didn't seem necessary to delete. It just sounded ridiculous to delete a seemingly okay article. If we can't keep it, can we just redirect it for now, until it does reach the top 20? I still think that we should just keep the article though. Ryanbstevens (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, notability is demonstrated by its sources: two extensive articles about the song. I reject the comment by Bonewah, and direct him to Wikipedia:Notability (music) and Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs. --Lost Fugitive (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song has charted on a reputable chart & been covered by reliable sources. --ThaddeusB (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep song is charting and will probably be a hit. --Caldorwards4 (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, should be expanded, not deleted. Redirect to album until it reaches the Top 20. Martin4647 (talk) 00:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I agree with Caldorwards4. I'm sure the song will be a hit being right after the success of "She's Country". EnDaLeCoMpLeX (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Charted single by notable artist. The lyrics should be removed after the AfD expires, though. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only the chorus is in the article. It's acceptable to quote part of a song when describing its content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:37, 10 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Scott

Borderline speedy/website advert spam, but since he is mentioned on an ESPN site I thought I'd AfD it instead. Passportguy (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of its refs seem to even mention Matt Scott. Bonewah (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is cited right here. link title —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hes mentioned in passing (“I’ll be back,” he told Matt Scott of TheShiver.com.) in a blog, so what? Bonewah (talk) 19:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You questioned it, I found it. It certainly doesn't take Rocket Science here. ESPN credits the site for scopps, when looking at the article where the scoop is, he wrote it. I am failing to see your disconnect here. Or simply put, logic. He is published on an ESPN affiliate site and did radio. I'll see if I can find more. That blog, by the way, is zagsblog, who is a huge media person in the New York area. It's not just Bob's blog. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

another

Now read notability of people

A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published[3] secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,[4] and independent of the subject.[5]

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.[6]

Primary sources may be used to support content in an article, but they do not contribute toward proving the notability of a subject.

Finding an article that this guy wrote does not establish notability. Bonewah (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not, according to how you read that, but that's not what you intially addressed. You talked about the reference links provided, which are clearly citing the site he writes for and the articles he wrote. He has been used as a source by others, which was again provided. You don't even know what you're looking for here. It's obvious, because you just come up with more after your previous concerns were provided. How is being Published on an ESPN affiliate site, being on a huge radio station, with his own show, and being used as a source not enough for you? Again, I fail to see the disconnect. Someone needs to be written about to be notable? Really? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twhit999 (talk • contribs) 19:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, someone has to be written about to be notable. Really. Bonewah (talk) 21:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even after a roast dinner, I find a distinct taste of spam in my mouth. I have little idea what ESPN is, but a mention by them of an affiliate is not an indicator of notability. An article FROM TheShiver is in the self-referential area. The ' More from ESPN' link doesn't appear to mention Matt Scott, but seems to be about Ray McCallum, whoever he is. (OK, it probably told me but I was looking for Matt Scott.) Peridon (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if ESPN blog is notable, that does not make its owner notable. Fails WP:BIO. There is no assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 03:39, 9 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metohija ethnic cleansing

POV article on ethnic cleansing whose only source is a blog Passportguy (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It would be notable after reliable sources are found. The claims about 150 murdered and 400 missing are not present in the very light-weight blog entry given as reference. Johnuniq (talk) 03:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - POV magnet, no evidence to verify it happened, no news Ghits, few Ghits at all. There are some News hits for the town, so this may be merged instead. Bearian (talk) 18:05, 9 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zoran Levnaić

Contested PROD. Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or cup. Also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 18:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 18:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable player. Giant Snowman 12:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable soccer player. --Carioca (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails ATHLETE. لenna vecia 19:57, 15 June 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 Stoked. Merge content and redirect to Stoked#Soundtrack per Victor Lopes Keeper | 76 02:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stoked (soundtrack)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. The article is just a list of songs featured in a video game. G W… 17:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - falls outside WP:VGSCOPE. Marasmusine (talk) 10:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stoked#Soundtrack per above. Victão Lopes ^{I hear you...} 20:24, 14 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Kerr (businessman)

No real notability. Just a businessman. Bonewah (talk) 17:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He is the CEO of a very large Coffee company in Ireland. He was on the Irish version of Dragons' Den. He is very notable! CargoK ^user ^talk 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at wikipedia's criteria for notability, I believe it takes a bit more than being a businessman and appearing on a TV show to qualify. Bonewah (talk) 17:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Have you tried googling him? Irish Independent --can dle •wicke 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, I have and Im unimpressed. What google hits do you think establishes notability? Also, if you have any reliable sources that deal with him in detail, why not add them to the article? Bonewah (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not have to be ready for distribution by tomorrow morning, it is an ongoing project. I was completely unaware this article existed before just now. Irish Examiner --can dle •wicke 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is his profile on Ireland's National broadcaster RTÉ. [4]. He is a lesser alternative of Peter Jones (entrepreneur), from Dragons' Den (UK). He was a judge on the show. If I create Dragons' Den (Ireland), can we keep? CargoK ^user ^talk 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You shouldn't have to create the show for him to be kept or deleted... whether DD exists yet or not is not a reason to delete... --can dle •wicke 19:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable; no assertion of notability (being a CEO and a dragon does not amount to notability). Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 03:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just another fact. There are over 50 outlets in Ireland of Insomnia Coffee. Just a fact. CargoK ^user ^talk 09:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At Johnuniq: Despite several independent reliable sources from various newspapers? --can dle •wicke 15:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one in particular is dedicated to his life... --can dle •wicke 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, please read WP:BIO – "notable" may be different from what you think. A business person is not notable because they are mentioned in the relevant pages of various newspapers. They are not notable because they are CEO, or that they run a successful business, or that they appear on TV. Johnuniq (talk) 12:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This reminds me of the time someone tried to delete "celebrity solicitor" Gerald Kean because... well, it's here anyway... --can dle •wicke 20:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having substantial coverage in independent reliable sources, such as the Irish Independent, is precisely what WP:BIO asks for. I would suggest that Johnuniq read that guideline rather than tell others to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources offerred above take the subject way over the notability bar. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I replaced the RTE interview with the 'Independent' interview offered by candlewicke above, as it is independent of Kerr (RTE being the ones putting on the show) and deals with him in detail. Im leaning more towards a very weak keep, especially if we can find more reliable sources that cover this man in detail. Bonewah (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources are all out there. I had absolutely no bother finding them whatsoever. No sources in article is a reason to improve, not delete. --can dle •wicke 17:38, 11 June 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 G12 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The states band

I've done some poking around; at least some of the claims are legitimate and could qualify as "importance", so I don't believe speedy deletion per A7 is appropriate. Because of the tone, some may want to vote for speedy deletion per db-spam, but really, have you seen any recently-created band articles that don't have a promotional tone? - Dank (push to talk) 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as copyvio of http://www.myspace.com/thestatesonline. I have tagged it as such. Passportguy (talk) 16:41, 8 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Grox (Spore)

I'm not sure that this 'species' is notable within Spore or not, but I've had to decline the speedy db-web on it as Spore isn't a web-based came (net based perhaps). Procedural nomination Ged UK 16:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This article has been copied directly from http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Grox Greg Tyler ^{(t • c)} 16:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, indeed as cut and paste. Additionally, it is not notable enough to have it's own article anyway, as a single race out of several hundred. Would fail WP:N either way. --Taelus (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've declined the copyvio speedy, as it's GFDL licensed. Ged UK 18:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL still requires attribution, though, doesn't it? Powers ^T 18:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed to Delete then, based on previous comment minus point about cut+paste. --Taelus (talk) 19:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability. YOWUZA Talk 2 me! 18:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable within the bounds of a game. --mhking (talk) 12:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delets See above comment. -66.230.114.105 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:46, 14 June 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. Keeper | 76 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Revolver (Madonna song)

This is not an official single, it has not been confirmed; it is just an internet rumor! Sources like Twitter are not reliable! BlueInTheFace01 (talk) 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any rumors of it being a single, not even on Twitter. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per the new nom. Not an official single. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:CRYSTAL If the 1st source actually stated that this was the first single from the upcoming album I might think otherwise, but that source (the only valid one in the article) doesn't mention the song at all. Rlendog (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A song based on speculation that has not charted is not notable. — Σ xplicit 21:02, 11 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IndiaHotelReview

Downgraded from speedy deletion to proposed deletion, then the proposed deletion template was removed without addressing the concerns. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_India#Indianexpress.com and the article talk page. This was very close to a db-spam speedy for me (I don't know much about how Indians view the hits in the Indian press, so I decided on a group discussion instead), but votes in favor of speedy wouldn't bother me a bit. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Update: I just found out Indiahotelreview.com has been speedied 5 times over the last 3 years. - Dank (push to talk) 16:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (push to talk) 16:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Indian Express piece is a casual mention in a blog on their site, not news coverage. There's one news piece in the Business Standard. As for the award, it's from a company that doesn't have a page on Wikipedia (at least not one that I could find) and it wasn't covered by the press either. So, at this point, I'm going to say Delete, but a page can come up when they become notable. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:CORP. While I'm pleased to hear the site "commenced its journey on January 2007" I have to say the whole article looks spammy to me. Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly spam that should have been removed as such at speedy deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 02:19, 15 June 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, since there's no apparent coverage in reliable sources to back up the current content. Flowerparty^☀ 01:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Rehak

A BLP of a self-published author. Although the article speaks of coverage in 'prominent newspapers', including the Montreal Gazette [sic], no references are presented, nor does Google news provide any evidence of such. The sole media coverage presented is limited to a couple of non-notable review sites. Fails to meet WP:BIO. There may also be a WP:C issue in that much of the text is also found at the Fantastic Fiction website (I cannot determine whether this was lifted from Wikipedia). The product of a WP:SPA. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:AUTHOR. There are no reliable sources claiming notability. Johnuniq (talk) 04:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep author of notable true crime book on Lizzie Borden and debut novel which caused controversy. Media coverage various, from notable to non-notable. The sources are accurate and reliable, although you make a good point not all coverage comes from sources off of the internet like Google. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 15:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Neither of the two sources provided - Rambles.net and Curled Up With A Good Book - support the notability of the book on Lizzie Borden, nor does either provide so much as a passing mention of any controversy concerning Rehak's debut novel. Please note that references need not be limited to those found on the internet. That said, I do find it odd that there is not a trace of the 'praise and criticism from prominent newspapers' found on the internet. Equally curious, it seems that the 'heated debate' and banning of the author's novel received no media coverage whatsoever. Victoriagirl (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are other sources for the book on Lizzie Borden supporting its notability. As for the debut novel, I do recall the media coverage 6, 7 years ago in around 2002. That is how I learn of that book. That was a long time ago. Your assumptions are therefore not surprising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment If there are 'other sources' that confer notability on Rehak's 2005 Lizzie Borden book may I suggest that they be presented? As for Rehak's 2002 title, A Young Girl's Crimes, surely a title that earned its author the title 'literary prodigy', 'garnered much praise and criticism from prominent newspapers', 'created heated debate' and was 'banned from some school library shelves' would have some presence on the internet. Which edition of The Gazette has the book described as 'The first Christian porn novel'? Whose words were these? How is it that a book that was 'successfully agented and published' was self-published (as were all of his Rehak's other titles)? A final query: I don't see that I've made any assumptions. Perhaps you'd care to clarify. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I personally don't have all the sources with me from 2002 etc as print articles and webpages come and go. I hope they can still be retrieved. But the book was not self-published, I see the author's books were largely published by POD and independent publishing houses. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 01:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment All of Rehak's books were published through Lulu.com and PublishAmerica. Victoriagirl (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment Some yes. Not all. Some were also published by Angel Dust Publishing and Just My Best, Inc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 13:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment In fact, the Angel Dust and Just My Best books were published through Lulu.com and PublishAmerica as reflected in their ISBNs and on the publishers' websites. That said - and with all due respect - I think we're getting a bit sidetracked here. After all, one can be self-published and notable, just as is is possible to have been published by as prominent a company as Random House and not be notable. The nom is based on the argument that the subject fails to meet WP:BIO. No information has yet been presented to counter this. Frankly, assuming the article's contents are accurate, this information should not be at all difficult to uncover. Victoriagirl (talk) 14:15, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment First let me thank you for such a lively debate. I haven't been this intellectually challenged and stimulated in awhile. I've checked into it and registration of ISBNs indicates that these are indeed 4 different and separate publishing companies, so they cannot be publishing through each other. And of the 4, only Lulu offers self-publishing, which means that the author can pay for a distribution service. But you're right that there's no need to get caught up on that. In my humble opinion, although I haven't bothered with hunting down the articles and links and citations, based on web searches and offline sources I remember reading, I come to the belief that the information is sourced and it meets WP:BIO. I understand you feel differently, and that's fine, I fully respect and understand, and we can agree to respectfully not agree. On a purely subjective note, I must say I have really enjoyed this author's books and it would be for me a big pity to see this interesting article deleted and removed, as I would be interested in seeing it change and expand as the author's career progresses. With that concern in mind, I of course leave it up to wiki administration to make the final call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Verywords51 (talk • contribs) 16:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC) — Verywords51 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
        Comment I'm glad we agree that the self-publishing issue is an aside. That said, I think it important that no misconceptions persist. The ISBNs on Rehak's books belong to four companies that serve self-publishers: Lulu.com, PublishAmerica, CreateSpace and Just My Best Publishing (warning: this last publisher's site features malware). On to the issue of notability: As it currently exists, I cannot agree the article meets WP:BIO. Simply put, there is no indication that the subject meets the basic criteria.Victoriagirl (talk) 17:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- and strongly suggest setting precedence for updating WP policy about "self-publishing" as a limiting factor. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) 05:46, 11 June 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. Cunard has made some strong points regarding the potential notability of the school, however the overwhelming opinion here seems to be that even with a relatively large "group" of references, none of them in particular really expounds on the school beyond blurbs and mentions. I will happily recreate this in userspace upon anyone's request to work on finding more sourcing to bring this one back to life. Good discussion here from both sides though. Keeper | 76 03:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE. Per user request, I've undeleted the article, blanked it, and redirected it to Lee Wei Song so said user can perform a merge using the page's history of editor contributions. Carry on, Keeper | 76 03:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Wei Song School of Music

I am really hard-pressed to find anything on the Web about this school that is not either a blog, a forum, a job offer, or a page in which the school's name is not followed by "proudly presents." Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I initially CSD-ed this page as being spam. Enough hits came up on a Google search to suggest possible notability, but as there's a second opinion, I'll back up any move to get rid of it.Tyrenon (talk) 17:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources in a Google News Archive search that prove this school's notability. Here are two neutral, reliable sources from New Strait Times, as well as one from the Asia Africa Intelligence Wire and one from Sunday Mail (Malaysia). None of these sources are promotional, and all are specifically about the subject. Cunard (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. When I repeated the Google news archive search, I failed to find "plenty of sources that prove this school's notability". I found several of what looked like press releases published in various places, each of which told us of one incident, but not a single example of substantial coverage, and nothing about the school in general, as opposed to some incident in which the school was involved. Most if not all of the other articles were not about the school, but briefly mentioned it. I am also surprised at the statement "none of these sources is promotional": [5] reads to me exactly like a promotional press release, but evidently it strikes different people differently. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my statement that "none of these sources is promotional". If this article were a press release, it would say, "Come to our professionally-staffed school. We have a new branch in Jalan Imbi." However, this article is not a press release. A quote from the article is "A SINGAPORE music school has opened a branch in Kuala Lumpur, joining the growing ranks of similar institutions in the Klang Valley." The phrase I italicized is what never appears in a press release. Why would the press release of this music school say that there are similar music schools nearby, indicating that students can attend other schools? No, Lee Wei Song School of Music would not want residents in Klang Valley to know about the existence of other music schools. This would take away from the number of students who will enroll in their school.
Furthermore, the author of the two articles from the New Strait Times is Ricky Yap, who has written numerous articles on diverse topics for The Malay Mail and New Strait Times. If Ricky Yap were promoting this school, he would have written only about Lee Wei Song School of Music.
Similarly, this article from Asia Africa Intelligence Wire is not a press release. This article contains no promotional language and is written by Sharon Wong, who has no affiliation with this school. She is a reporter, who wrote about this school because she knew that it would be a topic of interest to her community.
You argue that the school "[m]ost if not all of the other articles were not about the school, but briefly mentioned it." This is false. The reliable sources I cited above are solely about Lee Wei Song School of Music. The abstracts show that the articles are purely about this school. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing above indicates real notability to me. --Klein zach 05:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The sources indicate real notability. Cunard (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiently notable per our GNG. Eusebeus (talk) 13:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How do the sources I provided not push Lee Wei Song School of Music over GNG? Cunard (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Google news is not the only way to establish notability. Since several notable singers were trained here, this caused me to consider this school notable. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It has been much debated on Wikipedia whether notability is inherited: does having had some students who went on to become notable mean that the School is automatically notable enough for an article all of its own? There are many Wikipedians who would say "yes", as Graeme Bartlett evidently would, but there are many more who would say "no". Personally, I am in the "no" camp. If the school were notable it would have received substantial coverage in independent sources, and those in favour of keeping the article would probably be able to find such substantial coverage: they haven't, and falling back on "even if there is no substantial coverage it is notable because it has had students who have become notable" seems to me a weak argument. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:23, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am also part of the crowd that believes that notability is not inherited, but this argument is pointless when the school itself is notable. As I have pointed out above, multiple trustworthy news organizations have written about this school. This means that the school passes the general notability guideline, and the article should be kept. Cunard (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:N, WP:CORP. Notability is not inherited. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I pointed out above, I agree that notability is not inherited. However, I disagree that this school fails WP:N and WP:CORP. I have explained why the sources I provided are reliable and are enough to push the school over WP:CORP. Please explain why you disagree with my reasoning; don't just say that it fails this guideline. Cunard (talk) 19:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the articles cited as showing notability: none of them have significant coverage of the subject school - just by the by mentions. If the cited news blurbs are sufficient to sustain notability, nearly any local town with a newspaper would be filled with notable business establishments - as each will have some coverage from time to time - when they open, any new location - any award or achievent from the local rotary or sewing circle or fire department, what have you - and if they get burgled or other ill or good thing happening to them. For larger cities with bigger newspapers, nearly any business getting a review (doesn't your paper have restaurant reviews), etc. suddenly=notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:44, 16 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:25, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ascender arborists

Declined speedy, but still dubious notability SpinningSpark 16:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even if true (and how many exactly is "one of the few" anyway ?) this fact does not make the company sufficiently notable. Passportguy (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, no sources. Fails WP:CORP. Johnuniq (talk) 04:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under corp tag Hell in a Bucket (talk) 04:35, 9 June 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. Recreation of deleted content Ged UK 18:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abridged series

Procedural nomination. PROD had a hangon added, which I took to mean the PROD is contested. Consequently bringing here. Ged UK 16:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here we go again. The Youtube series mentioned in the latter part has a... storied history on Wikipedia. It was AFDed at least a couple of times under different variants of the title, then kept popping back up under even more variants. WP:SALTing was difficult, as there were a huge number of possible titles under which it could pop up under. Cascading protection was the Salting method of the time, and it ended up with it's own salting page in order to list out all the permutations of the name that we could come up with. It was still a bit of a whack-a-mole game. I think there was at least one page like this as well deleted during that time.

Anyway, that all said, even just as a concept, rather than a specific youtube series, there is absolutely no indication that this type of fan video is in any way notable. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some history: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abridged Series, 1st YGO:TAS AFD, 2nd YGO:TAS AFD, and here (admins only, the old, now deleted, list of cascading SALT protections). - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple more old AFDs. 4th YGO:TAS AFD and 3rd YGO:TAS AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And a 5th YGO:TAS AFD. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I had no idea. Case closed. Ged UK 18:46, 8 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Types of gestures

This article has been tagged as lacking in sources since July of last year with little in the way of appreciable improvement. It is a giant hodge-podge of original research that has less than 10 useful citations to cover over 100 individual sections and about 100 KB of text, many of which are not exactly applicable. There already exists a List of gestures (sans the original research) that accomplishes what this article is trying to do. Some cleanup might be possible but given the existing state of the article (reams of unsourced text), the fact that a suitable list already exists, and the fact that requests for better citing have gone pretty much unanswered for about a year leads be to believe this is best deleted and a simple redirect to the list left behind in its place. Shereth 16:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The aforementioned list does well what this article does poorly. Most notable gestures have articles of their own anyway. Very little in the article is sourced and new, unsourced material is added frequently. →Wordbuilder (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Although the page in its current form is a mass of WP:original research and WP:trivia, the organization by description (i.e. "Using one hand," "Using two hands," "Hand with body" etc.) seems like an improvement over the use of nicknames (i.e. "A-ok" to "Zemnoy poklon") used at List of gestures. ~~Would a merge, accompanied by a purge of unsourced original research, be more trouble than it's worth?~~ (See below) Cnilep (talk) 18:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It might make sense to "steal" the format but since the target article is a list, there's not really anything to merge. Shereth 18:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A good start on a highly notable topic. "Stealing" would violate our licence and so deletion is contrary to policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I sincerely doubt that duplicating the format of one article and applying it to another, sans attribution, would constitute a licensing violation. Shereth 22:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with Colonel Warden that the article is a good start, since it has essentially no content that is not original research. I agree that the topic is notable, but it is already covered at List of gestures. On the other hand a I agree with Shereth that emulating a format is no violation of GFDL or any other standard of copyright or basic fairness. Cnilep (talk) 00:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, almost nothing in the article is original research. What you mean is that it is original writing but please understand that it is mandatory that our articles are written in this way as they will otherwise fail our policies on WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:PLAGIARISM. We are here to write our own work, not copy that of others. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Without proof to the contrary (i.e. reliable sources), it appears to be original research. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I mean is that it is original research, as defined by official English Wikipedia policy. For example, there is no evidence that anyone other than Wikipedia User:Thirtysilver has done research suggesting that "Groin Point [is] Commonly used to show disdain and apathy toward someone or something one sees as stupid and worthless." (I don't mean to single out Thirtysilver; many editors do this - I may even be guilty of it myself.) The article cites no reliable third-party sources to that effect. Furthermore, a search of Google scholar using the search terms groin point, disdain, and apathy does not match any articles. This doesn't mean that the claim not true, but it does suggest that the claim is original research. We appear to have an honest, good-faith disagreement about the quality of the current article, and about the best way to preserve the valuable content within it. Cnilep (talk) 16:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article is definitely notable. This is not original research and I believe more source can be added later on. The lack of sources is because of the fact that these information is hardly mention in serious references. The content is very informational and can be improved later. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If this article is to be kept, the references need to be added now, not later. Whatever cannot be referenced, should be stripped until a reliable source can be found. →Wordbuilder (talk) 16:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Userfy. I have formatted List of gestures in a fashion similar to Types of gestures. (I also made note of this, with links to Types of gestures and its talk page, at Talk:List of gestures, so there should be no question of "stealing" as copyvio.) Since the information for which there is reliable sources is largely duplicated there, deleting Types of gestures will cause the loss of only unsourced, less-reliable information. If there is no consensus to delete, perhaps the page should be userfied until reliable sources can be located. Cnilep (talk) 19:16, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject is notable, so let it be. If you see anything in this article you believe needs a reference, then add a citation needed tag to it. You don't delete an article, because a few parts of it look like they might be original research. You tag it, discuss it on the talk page, and if necessary, eliminate those parts. Deleting an article should always be the last resort, not the first. Dream Focus 22:42, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know how many tags it would need? Throughout its history, it has had various tags but no one acts to make corrections. Instead, more and more uncited claims were added. →Wordbuilder (talk) 00:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly notable topic, lots of content. Granite thump (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep very notable topic that needs an article here. Yes it needs more citations but deleting the article isn't the way to make them appear. Thryduulf (talk) 21:11, 15 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balagan (Hebrew)

Originally a dictdef for a Hebrew word. Prod was removed to place a link to an non-existant article on Wiktionary. Passportguy (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (I am the one who removed the prod) Oops, I didn't realize the wikt page didn't exist; I corrected it so now it links to a page that does exist. I don't have a preference either way on whether this is kept or deleted (although I will note that he:בלגן, an article on the same topic on he-wiki, appears pretty large...but I don't read Hebrew), but if it is kept it should at least be moved to just Balagan. Personally, I don't see any harm or any use in having this page, so I'm ambivalent, but if it turns out that this is a notable concept in philosophy or something (someone who can read Hebrew might be able to clarify) I would argue for keeping it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You can always use Google translate to get a feel for a foreign language article. [6] Apparently this is about chaos, confusion, mess, or clutter. We probably already have an appropriate article for a redirect if one is needed but someone fluent in Hebrew should decide. This is the English Wikipedia after all. Drawn Some (talk) 16:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear, the word indeed creeped into half of Old World's languages, and il-wiki makes no secret of it. Delete, it's what specialized dictionaries are for. NVO (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary and this is just a dictionary definition. Dougweller (talk) 09:17, 12 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Internal arm springs

Article has sat for a month without substantial improvement in spite of tagging. Though a merger has been proposed (and the merger itself isn't a bad idea), the article is unsourced and no action has been taken on either improvement or merging in over three weeks. Additionally, the initial entry was CSD-ed (but declined). Tyrenon (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. In accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, please state what you did to find sources. "No action has been taken" translates to "I, Tyrenon, took no action.", remember. We don't delete articles for not being worked on, or for having no citations. We delete them for being unverifiable, which requires work on your part to determine. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it translates into there being absolutely no action taken per the log. The article may make sense in the context of awnings, where the proposed merger would put it, but that seems to be a long-discarded idea as it hasn't even been touched. I'm fine with a merger, but the article makes no sense as a standalone.

Now, as to sources, the search term "internal arm spring" awning (singular) yields nothing on Google while "internal arm springs" awning (plural) yields 7 hits (one of which is the Wikipedia article). Stripping away the quotes generates a lot more hits, but also suggests that the term as used in the article title simply is not used in more than a bare handful of cases.

More to the point in this case, every other edit by the editor who made this article was taken out for vandalism. The fact that the term is only used by a handful of companies plus this suggests that the term is a promotional term used by a single company with several distributors (five of the six non-wiki hits use the phrase 'cold-wound internal arm springs'). Elsewhere, the edits were at [one point] stated to be explicitly only applicable to one company, not the industry as a whole.

In sum, the article uses a rarely-used term (at least in the context used) to describe something. This stinks of an attempt at a promotional insert in Wikipedia (particularly in light of the [other issues] surrounding the editor). As the use of the term can be all but verified as not being used beyond a single company to describe their product, rather than as a generic term, either the article needs to be retitled and reworked or it needs to be deleted with salvageable content transferred to the overall article on awnings. And as this seems to be a service provided by one company with only a few distributors and no press coverage, I'd also cite WP:N on top of everything else as to why this should go.Tyrenon (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did some Googling and confirm that the thing exists as described in the 94-word article. However, the topic is not notable. It's just one way an awning can work (see WP:NOTMANUAL). Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Johnuniq's comments...I suspect this may be something that, if it is a topic in and of itself, it probably has other names and this is probably not the most common one. Since there's almost no content anyway, I see no reason to keep it. Cazort (talk) 22:12, 9 June 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 under A7. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cewen Nan

Speedy delete, This is a one sentence stub saying someone is a professor at a university. Good for him, how is he notable, where is the proof? csd was declined on this. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of significant contribution to a field. Can probably be speedily deleted if we get 3 or 4 more "d"s here and no dissent. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I did a quick "hoax check" on Google. He draws 250-ish entries (probably a bit less if you actually go through them). He's got some stuff on Google Scholar, but nothing that makes him stand out from the other 20,000 physics and/or applied science professors out there as far as I can tell. From the list of papers, he seems to be involved in ceramics, but only one paper has more than 50 citations (and most have less than 10).Tyrenon (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete, the article makes no claims of notability, just the fact that he is a proffessor at a university is not a claim of notability. There are thousands of university professors worldwide. The sources that I was able to find do not show he meets the GNG or the Academic specific guideline. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is now at the point where any passing admin can close this discussion and speedy-delete the article per WP:SNOW. I won't do it myself since I already !voted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete no assertion of notability; don't understand why speedy was declined --ThaddeusB (talk) 22:05, 8 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 01:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Herrera

Contested PROD by Janisterzaj (talk · contribs), stating footballer has played in a fully-professional league. However, the Maltese Premier League is not fully-pro and therefore he fails the criteria at WP:ATHLETE. The article also fails WP:GNG. --Jimbo^[online] 15:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable player. Giant Snowman 15:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable footballer. --Carioca (talk) 18:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep player has won the Maltese Premier League and plays for Hibernians who won the title this season and I believe that is a noticable achievement. Stew jones (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:30, 9 June 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.

Hello, I request that this article is now re-instated as this player made his international debut for Malta yesterday. Stew jones (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2009 (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 Nomination withdrawn. Great rescue effort. Non-admin closing. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nabil Lahlou

Contested prod. Moroccan movie director. I am unable to find web references about him or the movies mentioned in the article. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 15:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Strong Keep A tough one indeed, and perhaps worth bringing in the WP:CSB folks. I found that he does exist, and has note as a stage director [7] in Morroco and there seems to be a LOT of G-News coverage of him in French language. I also have found the films: Al Kanfoudi[8] and Brahin Yash[9]. They are pre-internet and sources are few, but they have been covered in books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelQSchmidt (talk • contribs)
- Upped per new sources. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've been asked to withdraw with regard to the comment above. I don't have time to check out the references tonight, but if they do check out I'll be happy to withdraw the nomination. However, there is no need to wait for my withdrawal before making the necessary improvements that will save the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, one look at the Google News link above shows a lot of articles from Le Matin, which is definitely a reliable source. However, these articles are about another Nabil Lahlou, a race car driver. Most of the others are what we would call trivial sources that only mention Lahlou in passing, and one that sounded good from the Google summary was blocked by my firewall as a probable virus. (For obvious reasons, I will not post a link to it.) But if one source is found that satisfies WP:RS, do not hesitate to add it to the article. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment upped from weak to strong per The world encyclopedia of contemporary theatre calling him one of the most influential Morrocan theatrical directors of the 1980s, and he is written of in depth in Companion encyclopedia of Middle Eastern and North African film. G-Book searches "Al Kanfoudi", film proved useful. A web search for Nabil+Lahlou+theater is also proving more fruitful, but will need help from French-reading wikipedians. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay. I'm spent. I have done just about as much as I can digging for English sources and fighting with Google Translate for some of the French. The STUB that first went to AfD has been expanding and sourced to become THIS. This fellow is quite notable in Morocco and Northen Africa. It still needs input and help from French and Arabic reading editors. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great finds. You don't get mentioned in a book like that, as the guy was, without being notable. Dream Focus 23:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 13 June 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 G3 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Ross

Not sure if this qualifies for G3 as an obvoious hoax, so I'll take it here. --aktsu ^(t / c) 15:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes, it does. Google comes up with no such person named Ali or Alistair Ross with those credentials, so speedy delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It also doesn't help that the article is a non-neutral essay. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 8 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:30, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seo monitor

Prod tag was lost in a confusing edit sequence which included speedy tagging (and declining thereof) as advert. Non-notable software, still in beta testing. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 14:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Software under development that does not have non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources, not-notable. A new name 2008 (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I disagree with the admin. This could have been tagged with {{db-web}} (CSD-A7), given their primary face [10]. Just because they also happen to have a firefox extension does not magically exempt them. Further, I see software projects {{db-g11}}ed all of the time. There is ongoing discussion on improving the g11 criteria, but there is a definite precedent for deleting both web pages & software under that criteria. --Karnesky (talk) 18:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete- as the original nomintaer this article is merely spam in my opinion. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:N. A speedy tag for software would indeed be appropriate. --bonadea contributions talk 20:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, obvious advertising for non-notable, non-consumer software. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to remind people or wp:snow and suggest this thread be closed and article deleted. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 14:20, 9 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Macquarie Global Leadership Program

Wikipedia is not a course prospectus: there is no indication that this one is notable enough for an encyclopedia article. Precedent at previous similar deletion discussions (see WP:OUTCOMES#Education) is that: "Departments or degree programs within a university, college, or school are not notable unless they have made significant contributions to their field... or produced a number of notable graduates." Contested PROD. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect to Macquarie University. Insufficient non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Drawn Some (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure how much of the article is mergable (perhaps have one line in the university's article saying that they offer this course?). There are many thousands of educational institutions, both public and private, and each offers over 100 courses. They are not all notable! I see no reason to even hint that promoters can put articles or redirects about each of their courses here (although I suppose there are half a dozen in the entire world that would pass WP:GNG). Johnuniq (talk) 04:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage to indicate this program is notable, and it is unclear due to the lack of coverage if even a merge is appropriate. -- Whpq (talk) 16:41, 9 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blake Lusty

Has received no press coverage (outside from buying an Xbox?!), getting a large grant isn't notable. BJ^Talk 17:31, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely not a notable personality. Keegan^talk 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:01, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. Livitup (talk) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 128 Google hits, anything substantial. Not notable person. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 9 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter Fleig

I spent about an hour today looking for information about this author that would meet the our notability criteria for him, and failed. I did find a couple of mailing lists mentioning a minor court case about copyright & a critique of his accuracy in the case of one dog breed, but that was all. The source in the article for saying 'he became more widely known' is one of his books (self-published in Germany). The lead says that he is "an acknowledged international expert" but the source for that is the front page of a publishing house (which doesn't mention him). Dougweller (talk) 12:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Hi Dougweller, try looking for notability here: Google Scholar: Results 1 - 15 of 15 for "Dieter Fleig". (0.09 seconds). Green Squares (talk) 23:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe you could explain why you are giving me list which includes a bunch of his own books, a pdf on snowboarding, etc? If you think there is anything there that meets our notability criteria, please say exactly what it was and how it meets our criteria. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure:

[BOOK] Bull Terrier D Fleig - 1996 - Kynos-Verl. Fleig Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Fighting Dog Breeds D Fleig, W Charlton - 1996 - TFH Publications Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Hunde helfen Menschen A Hornsby, D Fleig - 2000 - Kynos-Verl. Cited by 2 - Related articles - Web Search

[BOOK] Das Grosse Bull Terrier Buch D Fleig - 1997 - Kynos-Verl. Cited by 1 - Related articles - Web Search

Green Squares (talk) 21:41, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that shows notability. Dougweller (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When an editor is biased, they will never see the truth -:) Green Squares (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am the author of the "more widely known" phrasing, and actually of most of the real content of this article. The article was created by Green Squares, obviously for the express purpose of quoting it on Talk:Pugnaces Britanniae as proof that dog specialist "Dr. Fleig" must be right when he writes about Britain's Roman history:

Through research supported with citations, he tells the whole truth about the ancient breeds as the progenitors of their modern era's counterparts [...]. [11]

This became necessary because what Fleig wrote on the topic is simply pseudohistory copied from other dog books, and Green Squares had little more to offer than the assertion that Fleig "has written many books on dogs, I trust his research."

When I researched Fleig for the article I had the same problem described by Dougweller, even though being a German gives me an obvious advantage in this case. Initially I was under the impression that Fleig was being used as an expert by the Bundesgerichtshof, but it turned out that he was merely cited by the side arguing against restrictions on attack dogs. "More widely known" is based on my original research: From what I saw in forum posts and other unreliable online sources, it seems that many dog owners who were afraid of having to give away their dog saw him as a kind of leader figure. I found no only one piece of evidence that any third party has ever written about Fleig in a reliable source. His most controversial book was probably not translated into English; I would translate the title as The Big Attack Dog Lie: Germany … Your Politicians. This was a collection of texts by various authors, one of which initially managed to stop the distribution of the book through an injunction. But I could find no citable reference to the court order, either. Not from the court, not from the press, not from the publisher.

As to his books being self-published: It seems that the translations appeared with various publishers. While I am sure that some of these are not reputable (e.g. the one that printed the "Gratius Falsius" nonsense with the incredibly pure grammar), the list includes a book that appeared with Macmillan. But even if all books had appeared with mainstream publishers, that would still not be enough to satisfy WP:AUTHOR.

I am not !voting yet because I still hope that someone finds better sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, finally here is something from a reliable source, apparently a summary of a TV programme that appeared on the regional German network MDR (my translation):

Dr. Dieter Fleig is author and publisher of dog books. As a dog expert he is often consulted at trials when attack dogs have seriously injured humans. He sees the problem on the dog owners' side.

"It is absolutely necessary to intervene against the misuse of dogs; there are irresponsible dog owners, especially in certain social strata, who misuse the dog as a status symbol and thereby try to upvalue their personality. In my opinion the authorities have every legal basis to interfere in cases of dog abuse and ban the dog owners in question permanently from keeping dogs. This possibility is by far underused." [12]

That's still not enough for WP:AUTHOR. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- I used Twinkle, I guess I'll have to raise a bug report or something. Dougweller (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - does not pass WP:AUTHOR (or WP:PROF... I can not find any reference to to indicate what accademic field Dr. Fleig earned his degree in.) Blueboar (talk) 14:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Dieter Fleig is the author of over 50 dog books many of which have been translated into English. This level of work reflects the author is notable and deserves an article at Wikipedia, the same as the many of the following authors, SEE Category:Animal care and training writers, Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area Green Squares (talk) 17:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever heard of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS? There are 6 other articles in Category:Animal care and training writers; perhaps 2 of them are more or less adequately sourced and establish notability. Are you sure you want to draw attention to the other 4? The relevant guideline is WP:AUTHOR which doesn't say anything about the number of books published. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm still researching my !vote on this, but it's an interesting one. As a rule of thumb with articles about Germans, I tend to start by glancing at the German Wikipedia (it's not a sure thing, but if the German Wikipedia has serious coverage of the bloke then it's usually well worth looking into).
On examining de.wikipedia.org, I see that they don't have an article on Dieter Fleig, but their articles on fighting dogs do tend to cite him as a source (for example de:Kampfhund, de:Mastino Napoletano).
It's not an open-and-shut case. Back with my !vote shortly.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(later) He does get cited by other authors off Wikipedia as well: [13]; but not to an extreme degree. The Badische Zeitung knows about him here, or if you don't read German, there's a Google translate version into ~~English~~ Yoda-speak here; but again, it's not exactly momentously notable stuff. (Apparently he's chairman of a club with 129 members.)
He also appears in Court as an expert witness in dangerous dog-related cases, see here in German or here in Yoda-speak. ~~He gets a mention in other newspapers as well, see here (German) or here (Yoda-speak).~~
He's not earth-shatteringly notable, but overall, he is an acknowledged expert and I am seeing at least some coverage in reliable sources, so I'm going to run with weak keep.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dieter is a very common first name for Germans of this generation. The club with 129 members is a fan club of an obscure music group from South Tyrol. The reporting about its statutory annual meeting is the kind of news report of which there are several every day in this local paper (it used to be my local paper) – because it makes the subscribers happy to read their acquaintances' names in the paper. The club's seat is in Lahr, 360 kilometres from the seat of Dieter Fleig's publishing house. The homepage of Dieter Fleig, the president of the club, has been updated this year but contains no information about his death in 2001. [14] To summarise: I don't think this source is particularly relevant. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually mentioned three sources there. You think none of them are about the same Dieter Fleig?—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first of them discusses an annual fan club meeting this year, 8 years after the death of our Dieter Fleig. Your second source is my MDR source that I quoted exhaustingly (as far as it concerns him; the rest is mostly similar opinions from other people) above. Your third source mentions Dieter Fleig, chief officer of the land surveying office of Sasbachwalden (population: 2600). In passing. Because he was present at the opening ceremony for 23 new building plots. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, fair enough. Two of those are about different Dieter Fleigs. So we've got one (1) arguably-reliable source (or marginally-reliable source) and a few people who cite him. (I didn't read your post before !voting, Hans; I sometimes don't read the preceding discussion, it helps me feel sure I've formed an objective view of my own.)

And then I'm stumped for sources.

I'm still going to go with weak keep because there's a source and he's an acknowledged expert, although I appreciate I'm stretching the WP:GNG in doing so.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am tempted to !vote the same way. Not because of what our guidelines say; but I am sure that if there was any reasonable way to formulate our guidelines so that they include this kind of person while excluding the self-promoters we want to exclude, then they would. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that of course that would then include a lot of authors in hobby fields -- as you suggest, it would require a change in our guidelines. And there would be a spillover to other areas of biography. I think it would be a pretty big change in our guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 07:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wouldn't need a change in the guidelines, just a local consensus to suspend a guideline in this particular case. That local consensus would not have the force of precedent because of WP:OCE — and it could certainly be challenged and overruled, either now or at some later stage.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 10:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:AUTHOR. Neither ref 1 or 2 supports "acknowledged international expert on ... dog fighting breeds". Did someone verify that claim? The above link to translated court case didn't work for me (some Google error). If I was bitten by a dog, I might have a local "expert" in my court case, but WP:GNG requires a lot more to justify "international expert". Johnuniq (talk) 04:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: TFH Publications is one of the largest dog publishers in the world. In the preamble of the Dieter Fleig's books published by TFH Publications, they recognize him as an International Expert. Green Squares (talk) 11:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already provided a translation of S Marshall's MDR source mentioning court cases above. [15] --Hans Adler (talk) 10:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Blueboar. Concerning Green Squares' comment just above, a publisher touting their own author adds nothing towards any of the notability criteria. Wareh (talk) 02:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Dougweller. This article doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR--two of the references are to publishing houses (one of which Fleig founded), and a third is just an Amazon.de listing of his books. The remaining reference isn't substantial enough to establish notability. The article also contains some minor non-NPOV text ("he tells the whole truth about the ancient breeds") which the original editor seems intent on replacing every time it's removed. JiveTalkinChoirBoy (talk) 08:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No! He is telling the truth, I swear! He knows more about dogs than anybody else. And I can prove it because he even uses citations! I have never seen such sophixtitated stuff before! [16] --Hans Adler (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since the subject of this BLP is not covered in any depth by any reliable source...anywhere.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he died in 2001, and my version of the article said that. I had not realised that among all the other stupidities Green Squares had revived him! [17] While the source for the exact date of his death was technically unreliable (a forum post by his adoptive daughter), I suppose the "about" page of the publishing house which he founded is reliable: "Auch nach dem Tod unserer Gründer Dr. Dieter und Helga Fleig..." [18], or in English: "Even after the death of our founders Dr. Dieter and Helga Fleig...'". So it's not actually a BLP article. This doesn't make your argument less valid, of course. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Unfortunately, when the wiki-mob takes over, even the enlightened cannot challenge them. This is a definite weakness of Wikipedia. Admins, who are paid nothing are usually worth what you pay them... Illegitimi non carborundum. Green Squares (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well since i'm a member of an incohate mob: "You're a small-minded little person aren't you Green Squares (talk · contribs)?" Bali ultimate (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, an inchoate mob of bastards, it would seem from the above post. Green Squares, sapiens nihil affirmat quod non probat. pablo_hablo. 07:35, 13 June 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 This is articles for deletion, not articles for merging. Given that one of these is a featured list, I would say that there is a clear consensus for each of these to be standalone lists; WP:SNOW also applies. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada)

I believe the three lists (List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2007 (Canada), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2008 (Canada), List of Hot 100 number-one singles of 2009 (Canada) should be merged into the parent article Canadian Hot 100. Neither of the lists have more than 15 entries, and Canada is not a ~~notable~~ influential enough country to deserve its "Hot ..." lists for each year. (I've used the AfD instead of {{merge}} because of the featured status of one of the lists might impede a regular merge) Nergaal (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canada isn't a notable country to have its own yearly chart articles? So you're telling me that more people reading the English Wikipedia know more about the Japanese charts than the Canadian charts? You're also telling me that this Billboard chart isn't notable enough? I just don't believe this... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 19:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't see the point of this. Within 5 years, the main article will grow so large that we will have to split it again, assuming this charting continues, and with Billboard's history, it likely will continue. No sense wrecking the featured content with a merge. I would give each individual year list separate. NW (Talk) 19:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a content forking. Even if the Billboard will hang on for a couple of years, I see no reason why tables containing ~10 entries cannot be grouped by decade. Having a List of Hot 100 number-one singles in the 2000's (Canada) would be way more acceptable than weirdly-passed FL's that barely have a mini-table. Nergaal (talk) 21:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

wiki project Featured Lists was notified of this AFD on 7 June 2009---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)</ref>[reply]

Keep all - these are absolutely notable and there is no need to merge or delete. This is a major Billboard singles chart and there are pages like this for many countries, including Romania for chrissakes. - eo (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep all - There is no reason to have this up for an adf each is notable. Kyle1278 20:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - all are notable, and btw, as much as I enjoy making fun of Canadians, Canada with 34 million people has one of the largest English-speaking populations in the world, eh? Geraldk (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep all Coverage by a major music publication as well as Canadian agencies easily help satisfy notability. What you want is a merge discussion—set up a discussion page to merge to a new article, such as List of Hot 100 number-one singles of Canada, and link to the page from all three articles. Then, if you get consensus to merge, set up an FLRC to get the featured list delisted if that is desired. Lastly, if consensus goes with merging, you can redirect these pages to the centralized article. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The info is clearly notable, and it isn't a content fork, because it isn't forking from anywhere else. I realise why you made this nom with the concern about it being featured, but I agree with Dabomb that this should be a merge discussion/FLRC, not an AfD. My keep is not to say I am against merging. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:14, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all First, these articles are not forks, second its fine to have a short list as long as the list is complete, suitably referenced and is well written and lastly I believe that in canada these would be notible and I as a US citizen am not qualified to decide if a canadian article is notible. To me its not but I am not canadian so I would lean on the side of caution and say that we should keep it if we are allowing a similar article for the US or Great Britain. If the answer is yes and I suspect it is then we should let them be, as notible to Canada.--Kumioko (talk) 14:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Canada has been notified fo this AFD.---I'm Spartacus! ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep (under section 1) - The nominator does not actually want them to be deleted, rather merged. If you want to merge the articles, than request a merge, however I suggest coming up with a better argument than Canada's lack of notability.--kelapstick (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:19, 8 June 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. No arguments for deletion based on WP policies or guidelines have been presented. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miley Jab Hum Tum

Inappropriate tone, poorly written. Needs rewriting or deleting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr Bobs5 (talk • contribs) 2009/06/06 02:38:57

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Would appear to be a notable TV series running to 125 episodes. Best sources are likely not in English nor in Roman alphabet. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I expect that a show like this has at least two sources, although they may not be in English. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 15:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as concerns about style and tone are addressed with WP:CLEANUP and not deletion. And though non-English sources are out there, even a minimal search per WP:AFTER shows a number of English ones. Keep it, tag it for improvement, and lets get back to building an encyclopedia. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:09, 8 June 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 Bonnie and Clyde. Keeper | 76 03:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Prentiss Oakley

Fails notability. Outside of being one of the lesser known sheriff's deputies that took part in the killings of Bonnie and Clyde, there is nothing else that establishes notability for this person. The other deputies involved have had articles deleted or redirected to the main article and this one is no different. The only deputy who has sufficient notability was Ted Hinton, who authored a book on the subject. This article is essentially orphaned and has had no content addtions for over 2 years, there is nothing to suggest there will be additional content available to add. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The information is available, and I will try to help with this.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: In that Oakley fired the shots that killed Clyde Barrow, wouldn't that alone establish notability? I will try to find when he was sheriff. I have put in references, links, and worked on the syntax.Billy Hathorn (talk) 23:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I don't know that there are any sources that definitively conclude that Prentiss Oakley fired the shots that killed Clyde Barrow. The only source you've put in this article is from a book published 30 years ago and then a comment by Hinton's son 65 years later, quoting his dad. Meanwhile, the coroner's report does not specify what weapon fired the shots that killed Barrow [19] or what the order was, only that there were numerous shots and injuries. I don't think there is enough confirmatory evidence to retain an article based on the possibility that he might have fired the shot, when there is very very little else out there that would support that. As I noted, outside of being part of the posse, there is nothing to confirm notability beyond taking part, while articles for other members of the posse that did not write a book have all been redirected to the main article. Wildhartlivie (talk)

Keep and expand. Even if he is merely a lead candidate for having killed Barrow, that strikes me as notable enough. - Vartanza (talk) 03:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BIO and protected redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. Clearly unnotable on his own terms. Eusebeus (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the book alluded to came too long after the fact and the other officers had died. This throws the light of suspicion to personal motives for claims. Impossible to determine death shot. Future evidence is open for reconsideration.^[1]

Delete, I don't see that his notability is proven by the possibility that he may have been the one who fired the killing shots. He's part of the Bonnie and Clyde story even by his presence when they were killed, but that's about all. A redirect would suffice. Rossrs (talk) 13:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as NN. I assume that elected US sheriffs as mere local officials do not qualify as notable (but am willing to stand corrected). If so, the only noteworthy event is the killing of Bonnie and Clyde. The appropriate action might be to redirect to their article, but that might look stange. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:ONEVENT and redirect to Bonnie and Clyde. A protected redirect is warranted due to the history of reversions. momo ricks 04:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have found another sheriff involved with Bonnie and Clyde who has his own Wikipedia story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holt_Coffey Billy Hathorn (talk) 17:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC) Someone removed this note after I placed it.Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it was removed because of a question regarding its relevance to this AfD. That other stuff exists is not a valid argument for the retention of something that does not meet the weight of individual notability. I have the same reservations regarding this article you found as I do with this one. A number of persons who were involved at one given point in a crime spree, even someone shot or a law officer who was present once, does not meet the weight of individual notability in the absence of other distinguishing events. WP:ONEVENT covers that article and this one. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:41, 13 June 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 Minnesota Twins minor league players. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Hirschfeld

Low level minor leaguer. Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 18:05, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Low level future star. He's one of the most popular players on the Miracle who is a sure thing for the Twins in the next couple years.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy. At present he does not meet WP:ATHLETE but if/when he does get to the big leagues, the article as it presently reads would be an excellent one. KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of baseball-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. That is the proper location for minor league articles. Spanneraol (talk) 15:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, I'^mperator 15:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. He fails WP:ATHLETE. Popularity in the local market isn't the standard. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Has not been in a fully proffessional league and doesn't have significant independent coverage. A new name 2008 (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He's not playing for the Twins, so it makes no sense to merge there. Merge to Twin's article. He fails WP:ATHLETE and we don't hold articles in user space because we expect the subject to eventually become notable. If he does become notable at some point, the article history can then be retrieved or restored. لenna vecia 16:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He is playing in the minors for the Twins, so it makes sense to merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players where the main prospects are supposed to have mini bios. Spanneraol (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Ah, I misread. Adjusted. لenna vecia 15:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the Minnesota Twins minor league players article seems a logical target. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not just a minor leaguer, but a minor league all-star. Rlendog (talk) 20:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That rationale fails to refute the earlier point that no in depth coverage in multiple independent reliable sources exists, and so won't outweigh it. Cite some sources. Sources! Sources! Sources! Uncle G (talk)
Delete. News coverage consists of trivial mentions in articles about the draft or individual games. Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. BRMo (talk) 14:52, 20 June 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. Keeper | 76 02:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsolved problems in cognitive science

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Unsolved problems in cognitive science (2nd nomination)

Listcruft. The list was previously nominated in 2006 (also see this one and this one), with a decision to keep based on the assumption that people would find references for these supposed problems. However, in the last 3 years, no references have been found and the list has accumulated even more silliness than it began with.

Some of the things in the list are complete nonsense ("How much time is needed by the brain to comprehend its insufficiency?"), some are obvious non-problems ("What is death?" it's when you stop living), and the rest are either POV or OR.

It seems to me that this article is not likely to be improved any time soon (based on its track record since the last AfD nomination) and would be better off not existing until someone has actual, sourced, verifiable information to add to it. Arthree (talk) 15:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — firstly because it reads as nonsense, or pseudoscience, and secondly because it has lain unreferenced and unimproved for over 2 years, enough time for any contiributor to make their improvement. As this has not happened, we can say this article has little chance of improving in the near future to reach the threshold of acceptability. —fudoreaper (talk) 00:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OR. — Rankiri (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as having never been sourced. I think we can find the solution to the problem-- "What is this still doing here?" Mandsford (talk) 17:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. Merge any of the reasonable entries to Unsolved problems in neuroscience, if they're not already mentioned there in different language. (I've left a note at Talk:Unsolved problems in neuroscience asking for feedback.) -- Quiddity (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I've come here in response to Quiddity's note, and agree with that solution. I agree that there is little need for the page here, and demoting it to a redirect would make sense, but merging some of the material (just some, not most) would be a positive step to take. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have done what I suspect is all the incorporating into the other page that is justified, and at this point do not see anything left worth keeping. However, nothing wrong with a redirect. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything here worth keeping, and there aren't any sources. Looie496 (talk) 18:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, and not in any sense a !vote: Certainly don't merge it to unsolved problems in neuroscience; cognitive science is a very different thing. (Edit: Oh... too late!)
It's agreed that the article as it stands is hopeless. However, I would just note that there do exist sources for an article with this title.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- —G716 <^T·_C> 01:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mildly amusing but essentially non-encyclopedic nonsense. When someone has at least a stub article, it can be recreated. Johnuniq (talk) 04:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:Topic has no sense since there are hundreds of unsolved problems, but only few are mentioned (and unreferenced).--Garrondo (talk) 07:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as random, WP:OR-ish, unmaintainable list. Eusebeus (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the problems are editorial in nature. Yes, the list in its current state is a travesty, but just like Unsolved problems in neuroscience it is a topic that has been written on extensively, and the introductory chapter of any volume on cognitive science will list many real unsolved problems (and in a much more well-defined way than this article currently does...the things in the current list are just vague, pop-culture science things). My own field is closer to neuroscience than cognitive science so I don't have a lot of books like that handy just now, but off the top of my head I can think of things like Brown & Hagoort's The Neurocognition of Language (1999) and and Anne Cutler's Twenty-First Century Psycholinguitics (2005), both of which have chapters that list lots of unsolved issues...and that's just in language processing, one tiny corner of cognitive science. Yes this article is horribly in need of cleanup (and cleanup that I'm not capable of doing at the moment), but it does have the potential to be a real article with a little love and care. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some examples of real things that could be listed in this article, rather than the love/hurt/death mumbo-jumbo there currently (these are all from David Carrol's Psychology of Language, 2008...another language thing, but hey, that's where my expertise is so it's about all I can contribute, and most of these questions apply to things other than just language processing): serial vs. parallel processing (in language or whatever), top-down vs. bottom-up processing, automaticity and control, and the issue of modularity. That's just a few of the sorts of things that this article could be about if it is cleaned up. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to be clear, the reason I'm endorsing deletion is because the article would have to be fundamentally rewritten to be of any use. There should be no hesitation in restarting this article-title in the future (or now). Just without any of the current content :) -- Quiddity (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good point; given that the article does need to be totally rewritten to be valid, and who knows when that rewrite will happen (it will be a while before I'm able to work on any of that, and if I do it I would need to recruit some editors from other fields of cognitive science to help me), there's no huge harm if the article gets deleted—in fact, the redlink might even help get people's attention. Mainly I just wanted to point out that this can be a good article someday...but I won't kick up a huge fuss when it does get deleted (since the consensus is very strong in that direction anyway). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Give me a poke when you want to do the rewrite, Rjanag. I've got a fairly decent bookshelf on cognitive science—but plenty of other projects to work on, too.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 19:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nothing but unreferenced original research. While an article on this topic might be acceptable, it would need to be rewritten from the ground up. What's here isn't even a decent start. Them From Space 06:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would prefer this article to be rescued, but I am not an expert on this. Please, can anyone copy it onto userspace and work on it? Bearian (talk) 15:35, 13 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia–Slovenia relations

non resident embassies, simply being EU members does not prove notable bilateral relations. Estonian foreign ministry notes that trade with Slovenia is 0.1% so it's insignificant. I do note a number of minor bilateral agreements (the usual double taxation, visa etc) but they're not subject to independent coverage. most coverage is in multilateral context [20] especially as new entrants to EU. LibStar (talk) 13:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This reminds me of those xxxx in popular culture articles. Significant in-depth coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources is needed to establish notability. It's not enough to synthesize a bubble and squeak article out of bits of trivia and then try to pretend like it's not leftovers. Drawn Some (talk) 15:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep According to the foreign ministry webpage Slovenia (while still part of Yugoslavia) was one of the first to recognize the independence of Estonia, in fact they did that even before Iceland. Vice versa Estonia was the fifth country to recognize the independe of Slovenia (see [21]), what is somewhat notable given that back then most major European countries were reluctant to do so. Also see this article in the Economist [22], it seems that not only outside observer note the similarities between the two countries, but also government officials who see the other country as a role model. I would also like to add that one should not expect a lot of coverage in English, given the smallness of the two countries. Stepopen (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep As noted above there is material to support the notability of the relationship, and I will be happy to reconsider my vote once this has been added. Alansohn (talk) 18:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A handful of treaties the likes of which many other countries have with others, coupled with tiny trade and a lack of coverage of the topic as a whole do not make this of earth-shattering import on the world stage. --BlueSquadronRaven 20:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I read the economist.com article cited above. It does not discuss relations between the two countries. It says merely that they have some similarities: one escaped from the USSR, the other from Yugoslavia; they are both small; they have both created stable, prosperous countries with strong institutions. The article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. No sources discuss these relations. It is extreme WP:SYNTHESIS to claim these relations are notable. Johnuniq (talk) 03:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Read more than the first two paragraphs. The article clearly says that the Slovenian government sees Estonia as a role model due to a perceived similarity. If the Slovenian prime minister visits Estonia, and then emphasizes that this similarity and that Slovenia shoud emulate Estonia then this exactly what we need for an article about official relations. Add to that the specials around 1990/1991 as mentioned above and there is quite a bit one could write here about these two countries relations. And all that only using English language sources, and not even looking at sources in Slovenian and Estonian. Stepopen (talk) 04:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you're putting too much emphasis on generic diplomatic babble which means practically nothing unless there is some large scale intergovernmental cooperation (which there isn't). --Yerpo (talk) 07:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not sufficiently substantial to warrant an article. Eusebeus (talk) 13:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is nothing in this "article" that cannot be represented by a table row in the articles about both countries' foreign relations. --Yerpo (talk) 07:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. They recognize each other and don't even have embassies or consulates in each others countries, let alone anything notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per failing WP:GNG- there are no independent, reliable sources that discuss this topic directly or in detail. I agree with Johnuniq's analysis of the Economist source. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suspend the discussion! The notice from Administrators' noticeboard suggests a no consensus on all of the bilateral relations articles (X-Y Relations). Until further resolutions are made, the discussions should be suspended. See Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles for more details. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, this standstill is purely a proposal that has no standing until endorsed by consensus. others have agreed that existing AfDs will be allowed to run their course. LibStar (talk) 13:11, 14 June 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. Having read through most of the comments on this page, the prevalent opinion is for this page to be deleted. There has been coverage in the newspapers, but there it seems that this is limited to around 9-10 articles. Many have been using the essjay controversy as an example for a reason for this page to be kept. There is clearly a large difference in the scale of these controversies. The essjay controversy reached hundreds of newspapers whereas the news from this has been somewhat limited. If the article gains anywhere near the same sort of news content as the essjay episode then the article could well be recreated in the future. The notability of the event in long term may yet to be asserted but for the time being this seems to have been somewhat of a tabloid story amougst a few papers.

Further explanation from the previous deleting admin can be found here

For those that oppose the closing of the afd a little early. I do not believe that there will be a massive shift in the opinions given on this page. Any further comments will be mostly be watered down by the shear size of the rest of the page and pretty much all of the points surrounding this article have been covered and it is unlikely that an administrator will source any more useful information from the the remaining time this article has been open. Seddσn ^talk|^WikimediaUK 00:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Blacketer controversy

This is an absolute non-event, and is unintelligible for someone outside the Wikipedia community. The parent article has been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Boothroyd (2nd nomination)), I suggest this article to be deleted too. -- Luk ^talk 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Please, no. He was covered in one or two sources related to the incident, but this certainly isn't an Essjay controversy. He already had his biography deleted as non-notable; the event is just as non-notable. PeterSymonds (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No hope of writing a neutral article with two sources. — Werdna • talk 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you could use one of the many other sources then? Or do we make up the rules as we go along here on Wikipedia? ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, and especially not a newspaper where the stories are blown own of proportion. This is a very local scale, and the edits made were not in any way destructive. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Renata (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. Saying this only appeared in one or two sources is plain wrong, and the fact the article only uses one or two is reason to improve the article, not delete it. How about [23] and [24] for a start? --Rpeh^{•T•C•E•} 14:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- New one popped up 10 minutes ago: [25] OpenSeven (talk) 15:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ This does seem to be recieving a lot of press coverage and the editing of such a high profile article as David Cameron does just about merit an article in my opinion. This clearly demonstrates that it does have significance outside of the wikipedia community even if it is embarrasing. I found this which demonstrates it is being covered outside of the UK too. Smartse (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the article has now improved greatly in the last few days and I think that the application of WP:IAR to allow WP:OR and citing WP is sensible. Smartse (talk) 23:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sorry, I didn't want to !vote keep, but this has now gotten coverage in New Zealand and Italy aside from the UK. We have to do what we have to do.--Cube lurker (talk) 16:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Wikipedia or some suitable satellite article. This has implications in national politics as it comes after similar scandals involving, for instance, Derek Draper, and .the wider issue of inappropriate filing of MPs' expenses which it would not be putting it too strongly to say has left the politics of the UK a smoking ruin. --TS 17:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete This might get a bit of news coverage, but we really shouldn't have a whole article. There are a few more references that could be added, apparently, but still serious BLP issues. It's not Essjay. This can be mentioned in another article. — Jake Wartenberg 17:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete There has been news coverage, but I don't see any evidence that the "controversy" it's generating is a big deal. Unlike Essjay, nothing seems to suggest that this event is causing any changes (either to how people perceive Wikipedia, or what Wikipedia's guidelines are about anything). Likewise, as for David Boothroyd itself it's ONEEVENTy, so I don't believe the article meets the notability guidelines for individuals or for controversies. I'm at "weak delete" for now, though, because there has been some news coverage (as pointed out by people above). rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there isn't enough material for an article on this incident and the material would be better-placed and more understandable if integrated into one of the "criticisms of Wikipedia"-type articles. The fact the claims have been repeated in media in more than one country does not change this fact - and if we find 120 articles in media in 30 different countries that are basically rewrites of the same original news article, that wouldn't change this fact either. The point in question is not "whether there has been news coverage" but "whether we need an independent article on this incident" - and the answer in my opinion is no. I see no benefit from maintaining an article that essentially should be one paragraph's worth of material in a more integrated overview article, particularly when there are WP:BLP and WP:COATRACK concerns. TheGrappler (talk) 18:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Explanation of !vote - Cube lurker quite fairly asked for clarification. I do think this could be dealt with elsewhere. Whether any text from the current article is used, or a fresh rewrite, I care not. I do think a sysop needs to apply the "delete" button to this page, ergo I am !voting "delete". TheGrappler (talk) 02:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grappler and Rjanag above. There has been coverage but there are BLP and COATRACK issues that I believe make this article unsustainable. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete not least because the reporting is so erroneous and biased. For example, the picture Sam deleted was vandalism; the deleted picture showed Cameron making a stupid face, and had some out-of-focus round object in the background that made it look like Cameron had a halo. So, far from wanting Cameron to appear worse, as all these news articles round the world insinuate, Sam just tidied the article up, removing the attack picture and reinserting the neutral picture. As for the "regular alterations" he made during the past two years, they were vandalism reverts. [26][27][28][29][30][31] etc. His socks last edited in February 2007 and November 2007, well before he became an arbitrator. If journalists want us to cite them as "reliable sources", they should at least do their homework and give us something reliable to cite. JN 466 19:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you're overstating the unreliability of the sources. They all correctly quoted the edit summary used when reverting the photo. Sam Blacketer edited David Cameron more than any article, and he was the second most frequent contributor to it by a large margin. Many of those edit were substantial.[32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43] And Fys kept editing until just one month before his sock account, Sam Blacketer, ran for ArbCom. While there are some silly errors (the Arbcom doesn't deal with hundreds of cases a day) the sources seem to have gotten the basic facts right. Will Beback talk 09:04, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Surely this is simply a bad joke. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am concerned by the knee-jerk impulse to delete on display in this discussion. Notability is not subjective: it is conferred by significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and whether or not that threshold has been met here is far from clear one way or another. The invocation of WP:ONEVENT and WP:COATRACK is disappointing; the latter seems plainly inapplicable, at least to the version I am looking at, which sticks very close to the issue at hand and the weight accorded by the sources, while former advises that content on individuals notable for one event be covered in an article on that event – which is exactly what this article proposes to do. There is a discussion to be had as to whether or not the coverage is significant or the sources reliable, but we haven't seen it here yet. I think it's too early to judge whether or not there will ultimately be sources sufficient to sustain this as a stand-alone article, but to dismiss the possibility out of hand would be narrow-minded. Skomorokh 20:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I actually agree that the current text of the article is not malignant in the COATRACK sense. However, I still believe it is very strongly applicable - I think COATRACK tends to follow ONEVENT round like a bad shadow. In theory, all BLP issues in any article are solvable, ergo we never need to delete any article for BLP concerns - yet in practice we do, even for articles where the BLP problems are merely potential, not current. COATRACK seems to merit similar treatment. In my wardrobe, I have a coathanger clearly used for my suit - it's not shaped right for my shirts or my coat. Even when I'm wearing my suit, anybody looking in my wardrobe can see that it is indeed that hanger that my suit is meant to hang upon. Similarly, this article is clearly the coatrack crafted for Mr Boothroyd to hang on, whether he's on it now or not - can we guarantee that this article will continue to abide by the norms we want to hold it to, especially when we know Wikipedia has no systematic process of article maintenance? I think the ONEVENTyness is inevitable - regardless of the fact that there was a pattern of behaviour that continued for some time, there is basically only one story here. "Event" should be read not as "an incident occurring at a specific, discrete timepoint" but rather "how many facets are there to this story" - and it's basically "key contributor to Wikipedia sockpuppeted to evade discovery of prior edits, including to political articles, where he was known to have a conflicting POV". This may sound rather multi-faceted, until you consider that actually all those elements need to be there before you have something newsworthy, and that beyond that there's pretty much nothing (which is why some editors are unwisely dismissing it as a "storm in a teacup"). I don't believe it's premature to reach this conclusion, because I can't see how any future sources are going to change the overall shape of the story, even if they add more specific details. As for the sources so far, we know they contain utter rubbish - see JN466's post above. This is one of the rare cases where the citable sources we are relying on contain clear and vital errors - unfortunately we have access to information that confirms this, but aren't allowed to cite it, so the situation is messy. This also raises my fears of BLP issues - Mr Boothroyd is accused, in the sources that we actually link to (and the fact we are citing them indicates our endorsement of them as valid sources!) of things we know to be untrue! There is a strong chance of erroneous information being included in the article, albeit correctly cited, by an editor who has not had the benefit of JN466's input. I don't think it's wise to dismiss the the "delete" option as mere "knee-jerking", there are definitely valid concerns here.TheGrappler (talk) 02:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, on a very quick detour from the discussion, how was it found out that Blacketer and Fys were run by the same person? OpenSeven (talk) 22:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter non-event - just look at the last paragraph "All this stuff happened although even the Daily Mail admits that ... er, actually nothing interesting really happened". If this does have a place, it's Wikinews. In reality, it doesn't. Black Kite 22:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, do not delete Needs to be included in the encyclopedia. The calls for censorship are troubling, especially in this case of abuse and political bias by an Arbcom member. This incident certainly seems like the tip of the iceberg of what is a major censorship and bias problem on Wikipedia as the camping out on Obama articles by POV pushers demonstrates. Arbcom seems to be infected by this sickness and trying to sweep it under the rug isn't going to help alleviate the problem. If we're going to continue to be a partisan website that promotes leftist politicians I think we should disclose that. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- CoM, I wouldn't really call it censorship, and I wouldn't call Sam Blacketer's editing POV-pushing. Did you check out Jayen466's message above, or the related thread on AN (here)? Sam Blacketer was actually reverting vandalism on his political opponent's WP article...if anything, that's actually kind of classy. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 01:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS - a short summary might be warranted in History of Wikipedia or a similar article, but this doesn't justify an entire article of its own. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nick-D. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This "controversy" is certaintly not news and all the sources in the world couldn't save it.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 23:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"All the sources in the world couldn't save it." And there you have it folks. This isn't about sources or notability at all. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Giants27 isn't the nominator. Nathan^T 00:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice. If the story gets more coverage or discussion in major media forums, then it might justify an entry, but not as it currently stands. As Nick-D says, a paragraph in the History of Wikipedia should suffice for now. Cla68 (talk) 00:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nathan^T 00:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#NEWS at best; Wikipedia has controversies everyday. This isn't Essjay. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Essjay wasn't a labour politician. Was there an Essjay article before his controversy broke? Because there was one for this politician. We thought it was just fine to have an article on him until he engaged in inappropriate and policy violating behavior. Does the notnews policy indicate that people become non-notable right after they're caught acting inappropriately and it's widely reported on in reliable media? I'd like to see that policy page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment So far I see 4 people above who've !voted delete, but in their comments talk about merging. Another 2 have added their deletes based the people who've mixed delete and merge. I think we need to be clear. If you believe it should be deleted say delete. If you think it should be merged, say merge.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment That's a very good point but probably not necessarily a contradiction - I'm one of the people I suspect you're picking out, and I believe strongly in deleting this article. And indeed also that at least a great bulk of the current content should be deleted. The fact that I do believe that this incident should be covered in a paragraph or so of a more integrated article, either from a reduced version of what is currently on the page or as a "start from scratch", does not mean my !vote of delete should be interpreted as a !vote for merge. If anything it's a !vote for "delete this article, cover it somewhere else but certainly not with the current text as it stands, and what portion of the current text survives or whether it is completely rewritten is something I don't give an airborne whippet about". Your point that we need clarity here is a good one and I think actually the AFD keep/merge/delete !voting system is part of a long-standing problem - I've seen plenty of discussions where the keeps were in a small minority, and the rest of the !votes were between "delete" and "rewrite this and merge it into X" yet it got closed as a no consensus and therefore a default keep, even though there was consensus that no article should exist at that title. Since keeping here is for me is the worst of all three options, I am going to put "delete" in bold case! The fact that I also state that I think the content could be covered elsewhere in better context, and that I don't really mind whether this article's current text is used as the basis for that coverage, should in no way allow my comment to be interpreted as "really means merge, so when assessing !voting proportions, notch this up as a merge and therefore count it against consensus to delete". I hope this clarifies things a little? I suspect a similar logic may also work for some of the other contributors who wrote delete but mentioned merger (if any of them would care to comment, I'd be interested to see if my guess is correct - please do reply!). I think if somebody includes "delete" in bold, especially someone who knows the system, it's an indication that their main priority is the deletion of the article. I guess the exception is if their comment explicitly states that they want the article history preserved and the current material simply moved into another article, in which case it seems they have indeed !misvoted. I can see no delete !vote here that falls into that category though. TheGrappler (talk) 01:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor news story and minor scandal. Not notable. AniMate^draw 01:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It might be a matter for WP:AN/I, but not one for mainspace. PhGustaf (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge — How about we create a page for the different notable (read: sufficiently documented by the press and other external sources) incidents of politically motivated edits that have been made to Wikipedia—similar to USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, maybe Edits by political figures to Wikipedia?—and merge all the related articles to that page? Each isolated incident of insertion of political disinformation probably isn't notable by itself, and the sources out there don't cut it. But what about, say, two sources for a section on a page? I'm just throwing the idea out there. —Animum (talk) 02:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That the behind-the-scenes goings on and apparent corruption by members of our most-trusted body within Wikipedia is making it to newspapers across the globe is the clearest evidence of notability. By pushing to deleting it, we at Wikipedia are effectively guilty of covering this up and sweeping it under the rug, the last thing that we should ever be doing. Alansohn (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is my main concern also. Smartse (talk) 11:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. I am not sure exactly per what policy; per WP:IAR if nothing else really fits. We all know (unless we choose to ignore it) that the newspapers are inflating a non-event due to the Register's hoax that Sam's deletion of picture vandalism on a political opponent's article was something sinister. The alternative to deletion of the article would be some creative new way of dealing with the situation when "reliable sources" are obviously much less reliable than Wikipedia's collective knowledge about a situation. E.g. the Wikimedia Foundation or Jimbo Wales might decide to release a statement that clarifies what really happened, which could then be cited in the article. Unless and until that happens, the article needs to be deleted for lack of reliable sources. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy is unrealistic and no longer necessary due to improvements. I find Thatcher's arguments convincing, changing to vomit. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To explain the problem: The great danger with this article is that while it simply parrots what the press says, the press, notoriously not understanding our internal processes, will of course read it as confirmation by Wikipedia that everything is as described in the article. The next step might well be a major paper reporting that "Wikipedia confirms [in the article under discussion] that Boothroyd is accused of replacing his opponent's photo by a less favourable one". Then this article might report this as "According to Wikipedia, Boothroyd is accused of replacing his opponent's photo by a less favourable one". When some journalist misunderstands this as "Wikipedia released a statement that...", this might again be taken up in the article. Sooner or later we need to break this vicious circle. I would say, the right moment is now. --Hans Adler (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement that we have a real problem here, stemming from the fact that our self-knowledge exceeds the reliability of sources, and with your proposal that we need a more systematic approach to this in future. There are alternatives to simply parroting the press - for instance, we could cut the article down, possibly move it to another place in Wikipedia (e.g. as a subsection or paragraph in another article), and only include and cite the parts of the story that we know to be true - effectively distorting what the press say, in such a way as to leave only the stuff that is actually correct. Yet since the press have made serious mistakes here (see JN466's comment), I am afraid that even referencing the bits which are true by citing the press stories is dangerous - as it seems to endorse (referencing a source seems to be implictly indicate that we believe it's reliable!) an article that we know contains serious problems. And those problems have BLP implications in this case. I'm not convinced that IAR is the correct response to this problem, however your comment is probably the first one that really gets to the heart of the absurdity of the actual Wikipedia goings-on, the press reporting of them, the ensuing Wikipedia article, and now the Wikipedia goings-on to work out what to do about the article...TheGrappler (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There might be a case to be made for a section in Boothroyd's article if the individual was notable, but he's been judged not notable. This non-event. Wikipedia is not the centre of the universe. Ohconfucius (talk) 02:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be writing articles about itself. It is not "information" beyond pop gossip. Possibly add some of it to the wikipedia history article. David D. (Talk) 02:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Like Luk wrote when nominating this article for deletion: “This is an absolute non-event, and is unintelligible for someone outside the Wikipedia community.” Nuf said. Greg L (talk) 03:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significance outside Wikipedia; the minimal sourcing doesn't change that, since it doesn't establish any significance outside of Wikipedia. This whole business is maybe worth one neutrally-written line in History of Wikipedia, nothing more. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 2

Delete not enough sources to overcome the BLP concern. If he was dead, then perhaps. However, BLP is in full force. I would suggest that at least coverage in five different papers would be a minimum required before this is even notable enough to consider a page on the matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's been covered in various capacities in way more than 5 papers. Most of these voters don't seem to understand that we've long had an article on this subject and he's been in the news repeatedly and is an author and has some notability for his corporate activities (unless that's another person of the same name?). And now we have over a week of very substantial coverage on top of that. And make no mistake, Wikipedia is a major information source, so a politician engaging in subterfuge and inappropriate conflicts of interest while serving at the highest editorial levels as a judge and jury IS a major story in and of itself. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A subject wishing not to have an article should always be given preference to deletion. The failed deletion before was a mockery of the system. And substantial coverage? Not at all. It is mostly the same stuff with little new. The articles below don't show anything that reinforces, especially with their lack of a real coverage used. There needs to be at least five original sources on this controversy to even -consider- that it is worth while enough with BLP. Do you have no respect for BLP by chance? I would hope that you would, and if you do, then you wouldn't pursue this matter. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:20, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Putting the lie to the idea that there aren't sources isn't hard. Someone said there needed to be 5. Well here you go:
1) [44] Fox News
2) [45] The Guardian
3) Time/CNN [46]
4) [47] The Independent
5)The Argus [48]
6) Wood and Vale [49]
7)Westminster’s Icelandic folly - PressDisplay.com - Oct 13, 2008 has a story on him.
8) Westminster affordable housing row

PlanningResource - PlanningResource (subscription) - Oct 23, 2008 Labour member of the committee Cllr David Boothroyd, has branded the move as “a smash and grab raid”. He said: "So many people are waiting for transfer to a ...

9) Local elections good for gay Labour

PinkNews.co.uk - May 5, 2006 Gay councillors, Matt Cooke and Alan Dobbie held seats in Labour controlled Haringey and David Boothroyd held his in Westminster.

10) And then of course there's the very substantial coverage AFTER his latest controversy [50], [51] Daily Mail
11) The Register [52]

And then there are other stories that I'm not sure are related. There are several tech stories. Is he David Boothroyd, Contributing Editor to Vision Systems Design? Does he write on wireless standards?

That's just a quick Google News search. I understand he's also an author. So I presume there's lots more on Google Books. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigging him up as a "politician" is probably overdoing it. To be fair he's just a local councillor, and if I recall correctly formerly worked as a parliamentary researcher. Any material about his existence as a local councillor is not especially relevant to this discussion. I believe there are 20,000 local councillors in England! Moreover, reliable sources could be found (council websites, local newspapers) to write referenced articles on all of them! Yet this is certainly not the level of politics at which it's worth having articles for people. In fact it's not really the level of politics at which it's worth calling participants "politicians", unless you're trying to make them sound important and therefore raise the "conspiracy" level. This man is not a key player in Labour politics. He's not even a marginal player in Labour politics. I'm not saying the sources you pulled up about his councillor days are not citable, but where would you cite them? Clearly they do not make the difference between Sam Blacketer controversy being a viable or non-viable article. They might belong in the article David Boothroyd but that has been deleted at AFD, and again the fact we have sources describing his work as a councillor does not suddenly render that article viable either (reliable, multiple sources about councillors and their work would exist for 20,000 or so people, but we would AFD such articles without any hesitation; we even AFD those people who reach the stage above where this guy is, which is being prospective parliamentary or assembly candidates, in a pretty quickfire way). Aside from the stuff about his time as a councillor, we know (see Hans Adler and JN466) that the Register source - and then the newspaper articles that picked that story up and ran with it (and it doesn't matter if 200 newspapers in 50 countries do just that, it's basically just one story getting repeated again and again) - are deeply flawed. Of course, lots of coverage indicates that this story is notable, but just because a news story is notable doesn't mean it needs a standalone article - it is perfectly reasonable to give it a couple of lines, in context, in another article. See WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM. In a similar vein, calling Mr Boothroyd an "author" sounds an attempt to give him a CV-boost. He's certainly had a book published - without disparaging Mr Boothroyd in the least, I seem to recall it was not a particularly important or well-selling one, that listed historical British political parties, and it certainly falls below the "important as an average cookbook" test of notability. If it had been any more notable than that, his article would have survived AFD. To be fair I think you can make a borderline case for the article David Boothroyd being notable enough to keep, but most of the sources you identified would be relevant for that article and not Sam Blacketer controversy - I wonder if you're fighting the wrong AFD? TheGrappler (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@ChildofMidnight: Five sources does not notability make. (Ten doesn't, either.) Not automatically, at least. It all depends on what the sources have to say...and what they have to say does not appear to be enough (for reasons I and some other editors gave above) to demonstrate that this "controversy" is notable. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented on how many of those sources just quote his opinion as a member of the Westminster Council. Those sources are about controversial decisions that he didn't made, and they are definitely not about him. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another source appeared a few hours ago: [53] OpenSeven (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OK, here's my reasoning. There may be enough sources developing for adding this material to Criticism of Wikipedia, but I don't see enough here at this point in time for this particular article. (per: WP:NAVEL aka SELF or SELFREF). I'm not sure whether there is even enough here for a viable WP:BLP as a David Boothroyd, but that may change in time as this current event progresses. I think at the moment - WP:BLP1E has to be something that needs to be considered. I'm not suggesting that we sweep anything under the rug, but rather suggesting that we don't "make" the news - we "report" items in historical context, and in an encyclopedic fashion. This just appears to be very tabloidish at the moment, I suggest we avoid the tendency to make our own news. — Ched : ? 11:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BLP1E has been applied here. This is not a BLP, rather it is an article on the event. 1E can't be invoked on an event article. لenna vecia 12:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COATRACK definitely suggests that this is a BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "This is not a BLP, rather it is an article on the event" - really the thing that matters is the content of the article though, not the title. This is one event and it concerns a person so BLP concerns are legitimate. BLP concerns can never be solved just by giving the article a new title and saying "oh, it's ok, it's not a biography any more, it's actually about the one event that the biography was about, with the information about the person as background". The basic argument is 1E + COATRACK = BLP1E - even if in its current form the article is pretty "clean", we know we are linking to sources that are rubbish and accuse Mr Boothroyd of things we know to be untrue (is this a BLP violation in itself?). TheGrappler (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ottava and TheGrappler: I didn't say BLP didn't apply. I said BLP1E doesn't apply, and can't. BLP1E is for biographies of people notable for only one event. It suggests instead having an article on the event. Thus, as this is an article on the event, BLP1E cannot apply. Now, as far as the notability of the event or any BLP concerns within the article, that's completely different. لenna vecia 16:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as agitprop — this is wiki-drama leaking into article space. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the various points raised above - basically, nothing notable here. Eusebeus (talk) 13:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 3

Merge To either Wikipedia (today) or to David Boothroyd as a small section/single sentence there should that article's draft at User talk:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd prove notable. If by some unlikely event that this "takes off" further in the press, it can be always spun out later. rootology (C)(T) 13:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "Wikipedia" might not be the best article - I'm not sure this event is notable enough in the history of Wikipedia, perhaps "Criticism of Wikipeda" would be more relevant? When you say "take off" - what do we actually need to happen? The main story could be recycled round dozens of newspapers, without really adding anything to the available content. Moreover we know that the current sources are deeply flawed (see JN466's post) so repetition of incorrect material in the press wouldn't be particularly helpful. If we do merge it somewhere, do we know what we intend to source the relevant section/sentence to? TheGrappler (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge An interesting case, to say the least. By WP:GNG standards, I believe the controversy is notable, in view of the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". However, I do not feel the incident is notable enough for its own article. Suggest Criticism of Wikipedia and/or David Boothroyd (if recreated, a movement to do so does exist) as appropriate places to merge to. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, as an add-on, I concur with Rootology's contention that a stand-alone article on the controversy can exist if the coverage significantly increases. AdmiralKolchak (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Rootology. --John (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Wikipedia (or another suitable target, if there is one). I don't see enough for a standalone article. Ladyof Shalott 15:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep covered by reliable sources and my understanding is that couple more papers are going to cover it. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you aware that the "reliable sources" get many of the fundamental facts wrong, and have copied the same errors, one from the other? It's an interesting philosophical dilemma. Looking at how far these articles are from the truth, it is safe to say we probably have lots of articles on controversial celebrities etc. that cite wildly inaccurate facts just because they appeared in "reliable sources". Are we prepared to cite such inaccurate reports when they concern our own community? In my view, this train wreck of reporting illustrates a fundamental problem with journalistic sources: it shows what happens when a saleable frame or meme enters the journalistic arena. It acquires a life of its own, a life that is completely divorced from the facts. Here is the Italian news article someone linked above, in its Babelfish translation. The Italian publication actually shows the picture that Sam Blacketer restored, but says in the text that he is the one accused of trying to replace it with an "anything but thrilling image". Balderdash! All of this comes courtesy of Cade Metz. And btw, Sam discontinued the other account names in 2007 [54][55] – well before he became an arbitrator. The reports claiming that an arbitrator was caught sockpuppeteering are wrong. Yes, Sam had edited under different user names in the past. He then started the Sam Blacketer account, and before he became an arbitrator, stopped using the other accounts, and turned into an exemplary editor and arbitrator who since gaining his arbitrator seat has only edited the David Cameron article to revert vandalism, as far as I can see from the page history. That's the "regular alterations" referred to in the media! These are some of the inaccuracies in the article that cannot be put right without adding WP:Original research. Perhaps I'll write a Wikinews article. :) JN 466 16:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sugesting WP:V be rewritten or removed as official policy? Not sure where we go once we walk that path.--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jayen is exactly not suggesting this. There is nothing in WP:V that would force us to lie just because the lie is "verifiable". The simple solution is not to use the sources that we know to be wrong, even if they would otherwise pass WP:RS. But then we have no sources left, which is why this article needs to be deleted. And pronto, because we are currently knowingly libelling David Boothroyd. (The press is doing it unwittingly.) --Hans Adler (talk) 23:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PSTS: Wikipedia's logs here are a primary source which we can reasonably draw on. Disembrangler (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This event is not important enough to merit inclusion Captain panda 16:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The global coverage in major newspapers indicates that the nomination's assertion that this is a "non-event" is false. The "Wikipedia community" is just about everyone who uses the internet so, if the article seems "unintelligible", we should just improve it in accordance with our editing policy. Deletion is not appropriate, especially as Wikipedia is not censored. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The effort on the part of the editor who authored the article is appreciated, but the event is currently not notable enough to warrant an article. AGK 17:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - navalgazing. Nobody in the real world is interested in this tempest in a teapot, except for Wikipedia editors and our detractors. Seriously: when the Wikipedia archive is found in 5000 years and translated into NuInglish, will the people reading give a flying fuck about this tiny non-event? How about in 100 years? How about in a year? How about in a month? Nope. ➲ redvers ^{throwing my arms around Paris} 17:24, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per global newscoverage. Unfortunate that this means reinforcing the press, but we can't have it both ways. We either stick to our policies or we don't. Agathoclea (talk) 17:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this has spread well beyond the "walls" of Wikipedia, and has become notable in its own right. Boothroyd/Blacketer has stained Wikipedia's reputation in a real world-notable way. The article should stay. Unitanode 18:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep for now. Seems like the ongoing incident is at minimum notable. We may need to merge this into an article on Boothroyd eventually if the new versions of that are kept. But it seems like this is an internationally reported incident so the coverage here at minimum seems appropriate. Note that there are now non-English reports on this matter. See for example [56]. JoshuaZ (talk) 18:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~keep~~ - the idea that this is unrefable and uninteresting is clearly wrong William M. Connolley (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) Changed to reluctant delete, on the grounds that: reading through this, it seems fairly clear that if this article is kept, people are (foolishly) going to want to fill it with incorrect but verifiable content from newspapers that have got the wrong end of the stick, inctead of verifiable truth from our own archives. That would be (a) stupid and (b) a source of endless edit wars William M. Connolley (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not an internal matter at all, significant outside coverage, reliable sources. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: "Reliable" sources whose accounts are wrong on almost every point. I know ... verifiability, not truth ... That is all very well as long as the article is about someone else ;) Is it really compatible with WP:BLP to have an article full of stuff which we know and can prove to be wrong, just by referring to our own archives? I have checked every edit Sam made to David Cameron going back to December 2007, when he became an arbitrator. Here is the edit apparently mentioned in the Daily Mail, where the Mail says he "tried to remove a reference to the Tories having a 'consistent' lead in the polls.". This is the only time I found Sam actually added content, rather than reverting vandals, since December 2007. Now, if you look at this edit, you will find that what he took out was running commentary on 2008 opinion poll results, cited to a 2007 (!) Reuters article http://uk.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUKL1310900320071013?sp=true – material which he replaced with cited material which noted that Cameron had appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, and was said by the Daily Mail to have been presented to the world as Britain's "Prime Minister in waiting". And Sam inserted the information that the Tories were "consistently" ahead. Some Labour activist! Sam actually put in the information these "reliable sources" accuse him of having taken out, just like he took out the unflattering attack picture these sources accuse him of having put in! Perhaps they don't know that if you look at a diff, it's the right side that has the new text, or that red text is text added, rather than deleted. What do I know. Our article here, citing the Daily Mail, says that Sam was "trying to adjust the description of the Conservative Party's lead in opinion polls over the Labour Party." This stupid innuendo and twisting of facts is unworthy of an encyclopedia, and it is unworthy of our project. JN 466 22:08, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Either WP:V matters, or it doesn't. Either it applies, or it doesn't. As you yourself pointed out, it's what's verifiable that matters. Much of the last 2/3 of your comment is simply original research and is prohibited, as I read policy. Unitanode 23:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Non-event. It shows the frustration of wikipedia editors who have reinvented themselves through this internet site. Completely unsuitable for any kind of encyclopedia. Mathsci (talk) 23:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pretty much every other rationale above. — Hex (❝?!❞) 00:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant news coverage and increasing. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 00:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The article should not have been created and should be deleted. A single minor event in the newspapers does not warrant an article, regardless whether the event is related to wikipedia. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you read the comments here? This isn't a "single minor event in the newspapers" or anything even resembling that phraseology. This "event" has been well-covered in numerous, reliable sources. It's a notable controversy, to be certain. Unitanode 02:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, I have read the comments here. Simply because something appears in newspapers does not mean it is an appropriate topic for an article. In particular, we should avoid creating articles for what is clearly a "15 minutes of fame" situation, especially BLP articles. See WP:BLP1E. As I said, I don't think the relationship to wikipedia is important; this general class of articles should be avoided. We are not wikinews. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 4

Delete. While the publications used for sources are normally assumed to be sufficiently reliable to be used in Wikipedia, we know that these particular stories are not in fact reliable sources. Let's take a look at this in six months and decide if it's really notable or not.--ragesoss (talk) 03:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are here to provide an educational resource. Nobody is going to come away better-educated from reading an article that, as we know, is based on falsehoods. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC). Note: Still thinking "delete" after re-reading this article just now. Not only is this a news incident, it really is a non-event. The only reason we have secondary sources at all is that certain journalists didn't have their facts straight when they decided what story they'd spend their time on that day. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not the news. Per Mathsci. Stifle (talk) 09:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's a Politician, it's reached mainstream news. sicaruma | contribs 09:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just to be clear, the picture Sam took out, saying he preferred one "not carrying saintly overtones", looked like this. And for that he gets accused by the international media of having altered David Cameron's entry to suit his political agenda, and we are supposed to write an article implying that he did that? It is not compatible with WP:BLP to include derogatory information that is verifiably false. JN 466 10:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, we are to write that the source implies that. It's not possible for us to judge for what reasons another editor edits an article. Maybe he did want to do it to suit his political agenda? Maybe he didn't? How are we to know? Saying that it's "verifiably false" is the same as saying that it's "verifiably true" - something that cannot be done as noone can read his mind to determine the truth. Seeing that it's impossible to say for what reasons Sam edited the article (and I assume he really did it because the image really looks like David Cameron has a halo, no doubt about that), we have to write what we can verify: That source XY implies this. Not that it's true. It's the same with every BLP after all, we just cannot know why people act a certain way. Regards So Why 10:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at the picture with the halo effect that Sam took out? You can see the halo effect here. Are you seriously suggesting taking out such a picture might have served a political agenda? JN 466 11:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the picture. And I agree (as I wrote above) that it's not an appropriate picture for Wikipedia. My point is solely that even although this might be the most obvious reason for that edit, we cannot say that we know that Sam did it for those reasons (alone). And the article (at least at the moment) does not claim he did it for political reasons, just that some people accuse him of that. And as unfortunate as one might think that is, that is in fact true. People do accuse him of that. I do not see a problem in writing about well-sourced accusations - we do it all the time in articles about people who are accused to have committed a crime. I know it's not the same but the point is this: Being accused is not the same as being guilty of something and the article does not say that he is guilty. Regards So Why 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The deletion reasons are unconvincing. The deletion of the parent article does not affect this article the slightest.Many articles are unintelligible for people outside specific areas of interest but that in itself does not make it a good reason for deletion. Essjay controversy proves that it is in fact possible to write an article about a Wikipedia-related event based on external sources that is intelligible for people outside this community. Problems that the article might have in that regard can be solved via simple editing and while I understand the buzz the article creates here, we should apply our policies to all articles no matter the content. The article is sourced to multiple reliable sources (whether they got their facts right is not our concern, remember WP:V: Verifiability, not truth) establishing notability. Per WP:BLP1E this is not an article about the person but about the event. No other policy-backed reasons have been mentioned (NOTNEWS gets thrown around but this has continued for multiple weeks now). Regards So Why 10:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As Hans Adler has remarked that my line about WP:V not being about truth is "immature" and "problematic", I want to expand on that to clarify (copied from here): My point was that it's impossible for people at an AFD to know the "truth" about things. For all we know, the source could be correct as well as it's probably not. But since it's impossible to read Sam's mind and understand, why he did the edit in question, we have no choice but to write what reliable sources report - but making sure that the article reflects that this really is only what the source thinks, not what is true. And the article does just that, using the wording "...is accused of...". I see no problem in reporting in line with WP:V that a reliable source makes such an accusation. The article does not depict it as a fact. Regards So Why 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the reader can see the halo effect in the picture that Sam took out, the information that Sam preferred a picture without "saintly overtones" will always be grossly misleading. Again, you can see the halo effect here. Is it really so difficult to understand why Sam, or any decent Wikipedian, for that matter, would take such a picture out of a prominent BLP? Does it really require any speculation on motives? JN 466 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) We are talking about replacing this silly picture by this. It doesn't take mind reading powers to see that describing this as "[e]dits Boothroyd is accused of undertaking include changing a picture of David Cameron, leader of the Labour Party's rival Conservative Party on the relevant Wikipedia article to one 'not carrying saintly overtones'" is deeply unfair. If we can't find sources that get this right we have to shut up rather than libel a colleague and try to make the insane media campagaign against him even worse.

This affair is getting sillier and siller. I just discovered that someone had added the claim of an Indian source that Boothroyd had made "many unfavourable" "alterations" to Cameron's article. The same editor forgot to also add the "information" that this local councillor is a "labour leader". [57] It's disgusting to watch how this site is slowly being taken over by extremists who read our policies as forbidding editorial discretion. The technical term for writing something that looks like an encyclopedia but only follows its arcane internal rules instead of trying to get the facts right is bullshitting. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the article is kept, perhaps it could show the two images in a sort of "before and after". Ladyof Shalott 12:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image Sam took out was deleted a couple of weeks ago. I made an Undelete request, but it can't be restored. JN 466 14:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Update: actually, for the moment, it has been restored, and is shown below left. JN 466 14:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer. Stifle removed it citing a formal reason. [58] --Hans Adler (talk) 16:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sure Stifle is correct. However, I found the site the image came from this morning. Ironically enough, it originates from a blog on the Daily Mail website: [59] JN 466 11:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for this not being an article about the person, but about the event, note that WP:BLP "applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages" and requires us to exercise great care in sourcing negative material about living persons. In particular, "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used". These articles have been shown to be questionable, and of dubious encyclopedic value. JN 466 10:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, I would never contest this. I mentioned WP:BLP1E which just says that articles should be about the event if the person is otherwise non-notable. WP:BLP talks about "questionable sources or sources of dubious value" - but reliable sources are per definition not such sources. Yes, there is argument here that they are not reliable because they disagree with what people here know as facts. But unfortunately consensus was usually that personal knowledge in an article would constitute original research and cannot be used to remove verifiable information sourced to reliable sources. Regards So Why 10:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Personal knowledge shared by all editors involved can of course be used to inform editorial discretion, which may then lead to a decision to delete a borderline article to prevent further damage. It's disingenuous of you to claim that we absolutely must parrot lies as if they are true, in a context where people look at what we are reporting under the assumption that they get our POV from us, when there is a very simple alternative: To shut up. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never claimed that we must parrot lies. "Lie" requires knowledge that we simply do not have (i.e. what Sam Blacketer thought when he made those edits) and the article just says what he is accused of, not how and why he acted in a certain way. And I never said that I think this is correct or incorrect. I just pointed out what consensus was so far as far as I can see and I've never seen anyone successfully gain consensus to remove a reliably sourced information based on their personal knowledge. Regards So Why 12:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Knowledge we don't have? You are being disingenuous or very, very silly. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to be neither. I'm merely pointing out that you or anyone else cannot know what Sam Blacketer thought when he made those edits. Unless you want to claim that you in fact can read his mind and assure us what he thought in that moment, all we have are assumptions. It might be logical and obvious for you or me to assume that he could not have had any other reason for these edits than removing an inappropriate image but we don't know that. The fact that some people here and in reliable sources are accusing him otherwise shows that this assumption, while logical to you or me, is not the one everyone makes and it's usually incorrect to say "this is the Truth™ and everyone who sees it different is lying". I tried to see the POV of those critical to Sam Blacketer's behaviour, not to state what is "truth" or "lies". I will not claim to know it. Regards So Why 13:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with Ragesoss and per my comments at the Boothroyd userspace rewrite - the Register and the Mail's articles cannot be considered reliable in this case. I would however agree with a Merge to any future Boothroyd article if reliable sources can be found for both that subject and this controversy. Otherwise I suggest the info from the New Zealand Herald be merged with Criticism of Wikipedia--Cailil ^talk 15:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - After a great deal of consideration, and reading over all the comments here, I believe this article should be deleted. It's a news piece, not an encyclopedic article. The sources have not reached accurate conclusions, and while I am normally one to push the Verifiability, not truth thing, when BLP is involved, it's no good. Internal sources and other information available to us on the project contradict the conclusions drawn in the sources. It's irresponsible of us to report on what sources are claiming when we know it's false. لennavecia 16:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In cases such as this I think it is more than reasonable to draw on WP's logs as a primary source. Disembrangler (talk) 20:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've come to the same conclusion. As per WP:WELLKNOWN, a subsection of WP:BLP policy, we are permitted to access primary sources that have previously been referenced in secondary sources, to fill in lacunae in secondary-source reporting. Wikipedia here is a public primary source being reported on in secondary sources, and thus descriptive statements can be made about its content. I've edited the article accordingly, so it bears at least a resemblance to the truth while it exists. The attack picture that Sam Blacketer took out of the article has licensing problems, as such pictures usually do; but in my view the picture is crucial to giving an accurate account of what happened. I would argue it should be kept on a fair-use or, if need be, WP:IAR basis to illustrate this specific controversy for as long as we have coverage of the controversy in our pages. JN 466 21:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's not my point. I believe your rewrite is good, and I also believe the image is crucial to maintaining NPOV. However, what made this story newsworthy was the sensationalistic nature of the story. Fortunately, or unfortunately, depending on your perspective, the media got it all wrong. So, basically, in my view, the article is based on a non-notable event that the media used as a way to slander a libel a living person. So that's what we're detailing. I'd like to know what Sam thinks. If he's commented, I've missed it. On one hand, this could serve to clear up the issues, as I don't believe any of these stupid "news" sources have corrected their false claims, but at the same time, I don't know that such an article is appropriate. So, I suppose at this point, I remain in the delete camp unless Sam prefers it be kept. لennavecia 22:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I made some comments on the talk page which ought to help you. Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        With Sam's desires in mind, I'm in the strong delete column. لenna vecia 17:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide coverage makes this clearly notable, just like the Essjay controversy which survived two VFDs under similar arguments. --Falcorian ^(talk) 19:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge to David Boothroyd. Alternatively, turn it into a Wikipedia essay (Wikipedia:Sam Blacketer controversy), if people think this recording of where reporting of the controversy has gone wrong needs to be kept somewhere. Keep. On reflection, with improvements made to the article and additional sources given, it doesn't merit deletion on grounds of notability; and no other valid grounds have been given. We can draw on WP logs as a primary source to incorporate both descriptive facts of what actually was done, as well as what was reported, and allow the two to conflict without causing heads or policies to explode. The present article does that. A merge to David Boothroyd would be an option, if sufficient sources could be found to justify the latter's notability, whilst respecting WP:BLP1E.Oh I don't know, it is a bit WP:NOTNEWS really. If we could transwiki to Wikinews I'd suggest that. Perhaps writing a new article there would be a solution. Rd232/Disembrangler (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP in general suggests that there is not enough for such a page. WP:BLP - "This policy applies equally to biographies of living persons and to biographical material about living persons on other pages." and "We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references." The references from Wikipedia contradict the references from other sources. Therefore, there are no "high quality" references. So, you cannot justify as per BLP. This was pointed out many times above, so your statement that "no other valid grounds have been given" is very wrong. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is in the media - which satisfies notability. The media references are high quality for the fact that there is media coverage. And we can use WP logs as primary sources to illustrate errors in the media coverage - which satisfies BLP (accuracy). Disembrangler (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - BLP's notability standards are higher than notability standards. As it states "We must get the article right.", and sources proven to be inaccurate cannot be used as reliable sources in a BLP. The sources were proven inaccurate. Therefore, there is no reliable third party sources to determine notability. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Sources are not black-and-white reliable/unreliable. Sources may be reliable for some things but not others; see WP:RSN. In any case factual inaccuracy of sources doesn't wipe those sources off the planet - that coverage, erroneous or not, still exists, and its contribution to notability remains. Disembrangler (talk) 06:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:BLP makes it 100% clear that in BLPs, sources are black and white reliable or unreliable. Please read BLP before commenting. This has been stated over and over, and your comments are inappropriate. We cannot override BLP. It is a legal and ethical issue. It is apparent that you missed the blatant statement at the top of BLP: "use of high quality references." Any inaccuracy found makes the sources unreliable according to BLP. They cannot be used. You are 100% wrong and that is blatant from our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It does no such thing. Any particular claims need to be backed by high-quality sources, but the notability remains because the issue has been covered in multiple national-level media. The fact that they made mistakes (which we can correct using primary sources) doesn't unprint those articles. Disembrangler (talk) 16:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nomOo7565 (talk) 20:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge some info to Criticism of Wikipedia or similar article, provided it is balanced. This is a clear case where WP:Ignore all rules applies. WP:V would suggest that the event is reliably sourced, but this is a unique situation where our own archives prove that almost all these media reports are riddled with incorrect information. Until a balanced article can be written, especially on a subject of marginal notability, it should not exist. -RunningOnBrains^{(talk page)} 20:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There should be a correlary to WP:Ignore all rules called WP:Ignore all rules when it helps to keep the project from being embarrassed. This controversy is clearly notable, has been covered in a bunch of reliable sources, and yet somehow people keep recommending "delete." Unitanode 21:19, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or failing that, merge the salient points to an appropriate article. Given the extended international coverage, even by such publications as the Corriere della Sera ([60]), our notability standards are certainly met. Yes, the coverage may be wrong, but WP:V's instruction to aim for "verifiability, not truth" does not contain an exception for issues about which we assume to know the (sadly unverifiable) truth, such as Wikipedia-related issues. Sandstein 21:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What is astonishing to me is how many people are willing to simply ignore both WP:V and WP:OR, simply because the original research comes from Wikipedia itself. Unitanode 22:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not original research. It is primary sourcing. There is a difference. And Wikipedia -is- a reliable source on actions at Wikipedia, hence ArbCom can use diffs and the rest to determine appropriateness of rulings. So, information found on Wikipedia about actions on Wikipedia are enough to determine that the sources, if they contradict it, are unreliable. The same is a source saying that a bluebird is naturally red when all pictures of the bluebird shows that it is, indeed, blue. The Reliable Sources noticeboard look at credibility of reporting, especially when there is direct evidence that there is a mistake. Plus, newspapers can take up to a month to make corrections, if they even bother. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - - Can anyone else make any sense out of what Ottava Rima just typed? "It is not original research. It is primary sourcing." According to what I understand, the definition of original research is using primary sources instead of secondary ones. What you wrote makes no sense at all, and is not a justification for deleting this article in any way. Unitanode 00:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I detect shortcutitis (citing shortcuts without actually reading the relevant policy). Try the relevant subsection of WP:OR, which is WP:PSTS. Primary sources are sometimes permissible. Disembrangler (talk) 00:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I hardly know as many "shortcuts" as you do. I stumbled into this imbroglio, and am regretting every participating. Even still, a quote from your linked shortcut (does WP:IRONY, exist): "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." The relevance of this quote should be self-evident. Unitanode 00:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The bit I was hoping you'd take away from PSTS was "Without a secondary source, a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by a reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge." WP logs can therefore certainly be used in this way to back up the simple factual claims people have made about what actually happened vs what newspapers reported. Disembrangler (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Original Research is not primary sourcing, and primary sourcing is not original research. Original research is to determine what is not readily available from a source of information. If an author writes a book, then you can discuss what the book says without saying what someone else claims the book says. Please look up the definition of "original". A "primary" source would not be original. This is readily apparent from actually reading WP:OR. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        To quote: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it." That sounds like "don't use primary sources" to me. Reliable, third-party sources have been found here. We don't like their interpretation of the facts, so we want to delete the article? That makes no sense. Unitanode 00:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Obviously, people applied the quote to why this should be deleted. The primary sources contradict the third party sources, thus making them unreliable. It has nothing to do with "not using primary sources". Primary sources are a source, but not a justification for notability. Don't dare confuse notability with verification. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - - WP:IAR has been applied and this seems extremely sensible in this case. Smartse (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I see no reason to delete it. I found the article interesting, if needing improvement, and think deleting it would be either a sign of americentrism or the same sort of bias that caused the incident in the first place. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What does "Americentrism" have to do either with the incident or the article? The subject is British? Nathan^T 03:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely my point - if the subject was an American politician and lobbyist then there would be no question that we'd keep this article. TheGoodLocust (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Baseless argument, and surely not a reason to keep. لenna vecia 18:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Jayen466 has substantially improved the article using the primary sources that have already been mentioned in the press reports. The discussion up to around 15:45, 10 June 2009 (UTC) was essentially about this version of the article: [61] Participants since around 19:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC) are probably talking about this version: [62]. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment about timing. The user in question is planning to undergo RfA for re-approval in a few days, on June 15. The presence or absence of this article may affect that RfA, and the RfA may affect the article. I don't see any way around that, and either keeping or deleting the article will have consequences. Will Beback talk 01:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject of coverage in multiple secondary sources including Corriere della Sera [63], The Register [64], New Zealand Herald [65], Daily Mail [66], Sify [67], The Independent [68]. Cirt (talk) 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note, coverage in a few sources is not enough to override BLP concerns, especially with their proven unreliability. You would need to come up with a different reason. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note, there are more than "a few sources" covering this, and my reason is WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 02:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Then your reason is inadequate, since WP:NOTE depends, in this case, on adequate coverage in reliable sources — and not just "normally reliable" sources, but sources we have no reason to believe are unreliable in this particular case. When the sources have been proven wrong on the very basis of the subject's notability itself (that is, the newspaper articles are clearly INaccurate on crucial points related to how important the story is), then they aren't reliable by any reasonable definition. There are no reliable sources in the article, and none can be found. Therefore there is no notability, and your reason to keep has vanished. If, somehow, the sources were thought to be adequate, even if proven wrong, then WP:IAR would apply because it is in the best interests of the encyclopedia and its readers not to spread misinformation out of blind adherence to internal Wikipedia rules. We're not here to lie about people, even WP:WELLKNOWN ones. -- Noroton (talk) 20:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*~~Keep~~Change to delete, see below This seems like a complicated one, and although I know my way around AfD I'd be grateful for some feedback.

This event meets WP:GNG due to significant coverage in multiple reliable sources.
To dismiss the WP:RS as unreliable is to apply the community's own knowledge. Surely this is WP:OR? If the event was not to do with wp but some other website, and all we had to go on was sources that are repeatedly used across the encyclopedia, we would be accepting them. WP:V in reliable sources and not THE TRUTH<insert escape code for TM sign here> are what is told to all the editor-promoters of TV shows, films, scientific theories, etc. "But I know it's coming out in 3 weeks, the director told me." is the exact same situation, to me, as saying "we know Blacketer didn't do that, we were here". Point me to WP:RS that support your position or I might tend to think you were a hypocrite. ;-) wink to nullify possible rudeness here
WP:NAVEL is not relevant, it is referring to the construction and writing style of articles and the avoidance of the use of the word wikipedia.
WP:NOT#NEWS is not relevant - it dismisses use of Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article, not actual articles on actual events.
I can't see what's WP:COATRACKy about this, it is focused on the event - maybe the article has improved beyond versions used for previous !votes.
Again, perhaps because of the improvements, WP:ONEEVENT doesn't apply, the article is about the event and not the person.

I think that's everything covered. Abuse, criticism (+/-) and other comments welcome below! Bigger digger (talk) 14:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re the WP:OR issue, note WP:WELLKNOWN – Wikipedia maintains records that can be inspected and verified by the public, and these can be accessed to augment secondary-source coverage as per BLP policy. JN 466 14:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bigger - WP:BLP - "We must get the article right." That means that any source that can be proven to be wrong is instantly declared a non-reliable source in a BLP. This has already happened. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jayen and Ottava. Given that we can prove the sources wrong then, playing devil's advocate, if WP:BLP is so important, shouldn't someone follow through on getting "the article right" and remove [... the material] immediately and without waiting for discussion as per WP:BLP? I'm sorry if this is a bit of hand holding, but either the article is "wrong", should be corrected "immediately" and then get AfD'ed (I'd switch to delete due to lack of WP:RS) or the use of WP:BLP in this situation isn't quite so important? Bigger digger (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how the sources are wrong, it fails notability as there are no reliable third party sources. The only way to "get it right" is to delete, as is common for most BLP situations like this. However, many people above seem to think that we need to override BLP standards because it deals with Wikipedia. That would set a very bad double standard. Jimbo has stated time and time again that BLP is one of our most important policies as it can have a lot of ramifications and effects, so we should all reflect on that and try to make it our priority also. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ottava. The bold text I copied from WP:BLP suggests to me that this information should be immediately removed, so if you thought there was a problem here WP:BLP would require you to remove the offending information right away, perhaps leaving a stub. The fact that no-one has done that suggests to me that BLP does not carry the required weight to "matter" in this situation. (Or, it's not sufficiently strongly written). I also think the use of wp diffs is an interesting addition for use in verification. Per WP:GNG: "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. So they may have got the facts wrong but they still establish notability. So, notability is established by the news reports, V is established by our own diffs and quotes from those reports. That'd be my current position. Cheers. Bigger digger (talk) 06:01, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"so if you thought" So, Bigger is suggesting that I start edit warring over this article? Come on, your argument is 100% completely inappropriate. BLP is clear. Your lack of caring about it is disturbing. A closing admin knows our policies and knows that your comments contradict them. Therefore, you can keep talking on and on, but your point will be ignored in closing. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you'd do it, I'm just saying that if that's the policy shouldn't someone be applying it? I don't not care about BLP, I'm just new to it. Perhaps that means I can point out the flaws in it, or maybe I'm not accustomed to its expected application, but the lack of action speaks volumes to me about the consensus, but it doesn't to you. No worries, we don't agree! ;-) Bigger digger (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

<--Changed my vote, the fact that we know the sources are wrong. Per WP:RS: "Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made." I can now see how the fact that the sources are wrong about the events invalidates there ability to make the event notable. If someone was to publish a news item reporting the correct story I would switch back. Thanks for your time Ottava, I look forward to debating again with you soon! Bigger digger (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~I agree with Bigger digger's original summation of the situation. I think the argument that the newspaper reports are too inaccurate to stand as RS citations is overstated and~~ the article in its current form handles inaccuracies in the article well. That said, I'm not certain I'm in a position to express an unbiased vote. I had edit disputes with David Boothroyd when he was editing as Fys back in late 2007 as I felt his position in the Labour party meant he had a conflict of interest that he should have expressed when it came to actions over the articles on Miranda Grell and Maurice Burgess.Bondegezou (talk) 17:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 5

Much information has been added to the article since this AfD was started. The picture of Cameron that a good part of the controversy was about has now been sourced and a fair-use rationale supplied. It is shown in the article. The article as it is now bears little resemblance to how it looked when the first editors commented above. Should we think about restarting the AfD? JN 466 12:24, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you proposing a relisting, or just that we all !vote again from here? Bigger digger (talk) 14:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As stated above, the BLP concerns say that we must use "high quality" sources, and the information from Wikipedia proves that the sources used are not "high quality". Therefore, we lack any appropriate sourcing regardless of the changes. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Even though the article now contains the truth as well as the misrepresentations, I am still in favour of Delete. JN 466 14:32, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But we aren't about truth, we are about verification. Those are the standards we apply to other articles, those must be the standards we apply here. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:BLP, it has to be both - "We must get the article right." That is one of our most important policies. A source on a BLP is not "reliable" unless it is extremely credible and not proven wrong. None of these sources meet the BLP requirements, as they hold factual inaccuracies that are blatant. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I haven't been here that long, but even I know the "verifiability not truth" language. Do you really not know this? Unitanode 21:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:BLP. All of it. It makes quite clear that verifiability is not enough. JN 466 22:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Get it right" is different than "truth" in the way you use it. "Truth" is used to describe people who have fringe views that pretend to know the truth. Having actual comparable data that proves that a source is wrong is part of the reliable source aspect of BLP. That is what "get it right" means. These sources fail V because of BLP's strict requirements. Ottava Rima (talk) 02:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Ottava Rima. Although the content might have changed the sources haven't. Even more disturbingly since I last checked the article is now using wikipedia contribs as a source[69]. It is now Original research. I still say it should be deleted no need to re-list or re-qualify this afd. It's the same problems just now with additional ones--Cailil ^talk 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to relist the AFD. No matter how well verified, the article is still just a hugh BLP violation (Undue weight and such) disguised as a news story, of which Wikipedia is not supposed to be anyway. Self-absorbed navel-gazing narcissism. More references does not change this. Thatcher 19:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how I would !vote now if asked, but I do at least want to point out that I think the article has improved a lot and is a pretty interesting example of unorthodox sourcing. In particular, the use of diffs and Special:Contribs as sources for some of the analysis in the "Controversial edits" section is, I think, pretty nice; it's not what we typically think of as an RS, and maybe some people might bring up OR concerns with it, but it is also completely factual, there is no doubt that those diffs happened and stuff like that. I think a decent job has been done balancing out the junk that was published in the news reports and making this into an article that is actually kind of informative. I'm still not sure if the incident itself is notable, but I just wanted to comment about the improvement the article has seen. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 15:47, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know whether the article should be kept or deleted but I must say that Jayen's use of WP:IAR was inspired. He gets a surreal barnstar from me. It would be good if the article surfaced somewhere else so that the record is finally set straight. Esowteric (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the most powerful people on wikipedia turned out to be a sockpuppeteer. Seems completely notable enough, considering also the Essjay Controversy article. In addition, there is plenty of coverage from other papers.Teeninvestor (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just for reference, Sam discontinued the use of the Fys (talk · contribs) and Dbiv (talk · contribs) accounts in 2007, well before he became an arbitrator. JN 466 22:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He didn't disclose his multiple accounts and his use of them was overlapping, not to mention issue of COI. I don't think a discussion of his merits or demerits as an editor here has any place in this discussion. Notability is determined based on substantial coverage in reliable sources, which we certainly have for this matter and individual. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't know what the article originally looked like, but it's a keeper now. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article now shows it has had substantial mainstream press coverage, meets WP:GNG. Strikehold (talk) 06:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP makes it clear that sources must be "high quality" and cannot have proven errors. This has already been established, so GNG cannot be used as a justification to keep. BLP has overridden it. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I see there's no reason to delete it. The article may be appropriate to delete when it was nominated, but by now the controversy have already drawn media attention and importance to Wikipedia. This article should be the equivalent of the Essjay controversy. If the Essjay controversy is to be kept then I see no point in deleting this article. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete per WP:NOT#NEWS: this isn't a suitable topic for an article as it's basically a single news story. Nick-D (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove the "still" word, the decision has not been made yet. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 07:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If (as is suggested on the article's talk page), wikipedia logs are allowable providing that use of the data does not infringe WP:OR, ie is not analyzed nor interpreted but merely included as examples of the actual editing reported previously in nominally reliable sources, then surely we can't call for deletion on the grounds that the article's sources have been shown to be unreliable and hence has no reliable sources to satisfy notability and verifiability, as others have suggested here? Paradox? Esowteric (talk) 10:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia logs are reliable enough to prove if a source falls under reliable source or not. They contradict the sources, which establishes that there are no reliable sources per BLP. BLP makes it clear that sources cannot have inaccuries like these sources do. Hence, "high quality references".Ottava Rima (talk) 13:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't even know what to say. If issues like this one are supposed to be notable, then our definition of notability is seriously flawed. --Conti|✉ 14:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still delete per WP:NOT#NEWS UntilItSleeps ^{Public PC} 14:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Policy aside, whoever made this article has no role whatsoever generating content on an encyclopedia. We make pages to embarrass people now? Go make articles about things we need not about people who do dumbass things on Wikipedia. We have many obvious gaps in important content here and you jackasses are making articles on some Arb burned by someone with a hate-on for Wikipedia? Nail the dude on his reconfirmation RfA if you don't like him but don't use article space for grudges -- Samir 15:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is this something an encyclopedia should cover? No. Darrenhusted (talk) 15:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection, I am not convinced that the topic meets the threshold of the general notability guideline due to the paucity of coverage in reliable sources. Neither The Daily Mail, The Register nor Wikipedia (which is cited extensively and completely inappropriately) have reputations for fact checking or accuracy, leaving The Independent (whose article was republished by the New Zealand Herald) as the only source with a reputation for reliability. As has been pointed out, however, the report on Blacketer is not reliable, being strewn with errors. In addition, the new version of the article is being padded out with original research and primary sources with the effect that it does unjustifiably impinge upon the reputation of a living person and gives a very different impression of the topic than one gets from reading the third-party sources. Perhaps some of the more credible claims from the article in The Independent can be used to support a line or two in the History of Wikipedia article, but I doubt it; this article, at least, should go. Skomorokh 16:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:BLP1E, and per Skomorokh. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - BLP concerns in an article about a poorly sourced and inaccurate news report about one event. Why would an encyclopedia include this? Let it go. Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is permanent. A year or two from now I doubt if anybody besides Wikipedians will know or care about these events. Any accurate and reliably sourced content can be merged into Criticisms of Wikipedia or some such appropriate article, observing WP:UNDUE. Jehochman ^Talk 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a worryingly careless reference to (I assume) the policy phrase "Notability is not temporary" which is supposed to mean that a subject doesn't need to have ongoing news coverage, once it reaches a threshold of notability. Disembrangler (talk) 16:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No. It is a reminder that the threshold of notability isn't as low as it would probably be if notability were temporary. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A well written article that meets our notability threshold, I dont at all agree with classing the Daily Mail as unreliable. However , although not technically an attack page , its serving that purpose. Much as Im happy about the exposure of our left wing / materialist bias and the fact its not always achieved "by the book", I prefer that in cases of borderline noteabity we honour the wishes of the subject. FeydHuxtable (talk) 16:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A news item (not a genuine encyclopaedic entry), slightly embarrassing to the subject, unlikely to be of longterm interest outside Wikipedia, based partly on sources that we know to be inaccurate. Anirishwoman (talk) 16:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikinews, anyone? Disembrangler (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is there any doubt that this would be universally agreed to be obviously and completely non-notable if it were any web site other than Wikipedia? Everything else is just special pleading. Groomtech (talk) 17:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've been avoiding this particular issue, but I do want to be on record here. This is a pretty clear case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. The long-term significance of this is likely to be zero. Does anyone think this will merit a mention in, say, Encyclopedia Brittanica's next edition? Or that of any serious, respectable reference work? Balance that with respect for privacy and issues of real-life harm.
Top it off with a serious concern about a lack of perspective. Reality check - Wikipedia is not the center of the universe or the sole supplier of information, so we cannot "censor" anything. Anyone capable of typing "Sam Blacketer" or "David Boothroyd" into a textbox on Google will be deluged with information on this topic, whether or not we feature an article on it, so let's stop throwing around the word "censorship". We "censor" BLPs all the time when the subject is marginally (non-)notable, a private figure, and the subject of possible real-life harm - or at least we should.
Most disturbing is the implication that a biographical article is a form of "accountability" or "punishment" for Wiki-sins like sockpuppetry. BLPs are not a form of punishment, nor a means of enforcing accountability. This is exactly the sort of issue where the more critical and disaffected segments of the community should be out front leading the charge to delete this article, since Wikipedia's fetish for these sorts of biographies is a common rallying point of critcism. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's interesting, because 'Google says yes' (28,000 hits and counting) has got to be the most common rebutal when trying to delete anything on grounds of notability and NOT#NEWS. It's an ignorant and simplistic analysis, but if it's good enough for 99% of other articles, even minor BLPs aplenty, if people aren't intentionally or unintentionally being biased, it's good enough here as a jumping off point to throw out certain arguments at the starting post. The way some people are going on in this Afd throwing around WP:NOT#NEWS, you would think that national newspapers across the globe treated Wikipedia scandals or Wikipedia editors as noteworthy every single day. Or bizzarely, that some people honestly think this coverage was simply a matter of daily routine for the likes of The Telegraph etc. Hah. NOT#NEWS has got to be the worst argument for saying this article should be deleted, and I hope the eventual closer goes nowhere near to endorsing it as even remotely relevant to this article. BLP and its numerous tentacles to other policies is about the only plausible starting point for any argument for deletion, and we all know how random that is as a uniformly applied policy. If anything, this article should have easily been merged to represent a couple of lines in a subsequently properly debated David Boothroyd, existing as it had since 2005. But creative interpretation of 'OMG BLP' and subsequent mis-use of DRV as invisible AFD 2 has sorted that one as a possible outcome already, producing the learning paradox that this article, which represents an unsaveable attack page even more than his summarily deleted ordinary bio, now wonderously warrants a full discussion by far more people than ever before. Learning in action. Doing no harm as a philosophy is all well and good, but when you are shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted, it only looks like self important rubbish. Wikipedia is not the world, but the world (where Boothroyd has many a time inter-acted on a public level when it suited him) does not stop retaining knowledge of David Boothroyd just because we have. MickMacNee (talk) 19:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - When I mention WP:NOT#NEWS, I simply mean that we have an obligation to consider whether this incident is truly noteworthy in a historical, encyclopedic context beyond the next few 24-hour news cycles. I assume the remainder of your statement is additional rebuttal, but I'm not able to follow it sufficiently to respond. MastCell ^Talk 20:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - But you seem to think that our standard of what is "truly noteworthy in a historical, encyclopedic context", is the same as Brittanicca. I can't take that as anything but proveably false. MickMacNee (talk) 20:32, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I think that in assessing what is "encyclopedic", it is useful to refer to other encyclopedias. The word seems to lack meaning otherwise. I'm starting from the presumption that Wikipedia aspires to be a serious, respectable reference work. If that's the case, then it's worth considering how other serious, respectable reference works might handle such a situation. If this idea is truly as crazy as you're trying to make it out to be, maybe this place isn't worth the effort any longer. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You'd definitely be wasting your time trying to apply that concept across Wikipedia. Sure it might eventually be applied that way for this article, but that is the wonderful nonsense of the place. Speaking of 'serious reference works', say someone one day wrote a proper 'Encyclopoedia of Wikipedia', on paper and everything. Do you think Boothroyd or his Controversy would make the cut? I think so. But, that's not particularly relevant here anyway, it's just an interesting thought experiment. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not that it matters much, but Google says 206, not 28,000. JN 466 21:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - My first draft was, 10 pages and counting. My bad. MickMacNee (talk) 23:06, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd like to strongly agree that views that anyone should make an article as punishment are reprehensible and should be repudiated. However, I'm not seeing anyone claiming that. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep well-written, lots of sources, notable. Granite thump (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this person weren't connected to Wikipedia, we wouldn't be having this discussion. This is a blatant WP:BLP1E; as someone above says, unlike the Siegenthaler incident the long term impact of this on anyone other than the subject himself is going to be zero. This isn't "censorship"; if Britannica fired a writer for a perceived conflict of interest we wouldn't give it its own article, and I don't see how this case is any different. – iride scent 19:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vomit A BLP violation in disguise as a story about an event. Self-absorbed navel-gazing narcissism at its worst. Oh my God, someone pretended to be someone else on Wikipedia, how will civilization survive? Thatcher 19:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The Wikipedia part of civilization won't survive as a record of all human knowledge by pretending this is an everyday internal matter, pissing all over its own concept of notability. BLP violation? Debateable (which is why we are here) given the person and the context, the rational debate of which is now tarnished by our own previous out of process application of our ever changing and random BLP policy on this very subject. Navel gazing? Since when were the editors of the Independant and the Daily Mail part of Wikipedia? Narcissism? In defence of a minor career politician who previously 'reserved his right to become Wikipedia notable at some point', and by whose own failures to declare member's interests while in high office with Wikipedia caused this whole thing in the first place, that's a freeking classic. MickMacNee (talk) 19:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per extreme navel-gazing and per MZMcBride, Iridescent and Thatcher. --Peter Andersen (talk) 19:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks, SqueakBox talk 20:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:BLP1E. I know people are upset with the controversy (rightfully so, in my opinion), but I believe their emotions are taking precedent over rational thinking. In the grand scheme of things, will this event survive the test of time outside of Wikipedia? Probably not. Perhaps a one or two line mention in the criticism of Wikipedia or history of Wikipedia articles might be appropriate, but definitely not an entire article. I also agree with Skomorokh - there are a number of reliability issues with the sources used. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment BLP1E isn't about that. BLP1E explicitly is about not having biographies of individuals notable for one event. That's completely different than this. This isn't a biography. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It may not have the name of a person as its title, but it is clearly about a single person and events involving that person. Arguing that we can't apply the principle of BLP1E because the article doesn't meet your definition of biography is engaging in a level of formalism that is just unnecessary and unhelpful. Nathan^T 22:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how BLP1E applies here – it unambiguously refers to biographies separate from articles on events. If one grants that Mr. Boothroyd is not notable outside this controversy, all BLP1E has to say about it is that there ought not to be a David Boothroyd article. Skomorokh 22:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not sure if this source had been mentioned above, in addition to the others: West End Extra. Cirt (talk) 21:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed that. It is written by the same journalist as The Independent's article, Jamie Welham, and substantially reprints the content of the latter work. It does go into more depth than The Independent, and if deemed reliable would go some way to providing a foundation for a standalone article if it weren't for the fact that there really isn't a lot of meat in it. As for reliability, the West End Extra is a local tabloid not indexed by Google News (which might be why it was not noticed here until now), and the article is written in an infotainment tone. If it's anything like its freesheet sister paper the Camden New Journal, its use as a key source would be difficult to justify under WP:BLP. Skomorokh 22:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel you misrepresent the Camden New Journal and West End Extra. The CNJ is a long-established and respected local newspaper that has won awards. Similar papers are routinely used as reliable sources on other articles. The CNJ is used as a reliable source on other articles. I am uncomfortable about this selective application of what constitutes a reliable source. Bondegezou (talk) 07:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. virtual non-event, seven-day wonder, etc. leaky_caldron (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking adequate reliable sources: a brief piece of Wikipedia self referencing, short term political stirring by the far right at the Daily Mail during local election campaigns, and a woefully inaccurate piece in the Independent. The debunking of these inaccurate claims is interesting and useful, but looks rather like original research producing conclusions that haven't been published by a reliable source – these aspects could usefully be merged into User:JoshuaZ/David Boothroyd but shouldn't be in mainspace without proper sources. . . dave souza, talk 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete putting all other issues aside I am not at all convinced that Wikipedia is able to cover this topic from a neutral perspective with the amount of source material that is available. Even the title of the article suggests this, most of the sources barely mention the Wikipedia user name and none use it in their titles. Beyond that the citation of example diffs and contribution logs is not at all ideal and the (presently) short term and small scale of the incident to me means that this looks more like a news story than an encyclopaedia article. Some of the information given in the sources we know to be false, above someone says that this doesn't matter, just the sources saying it makes it verifiable. To me this is a worrying interpretation of Wikipedia:Verifiability, all sources are situational to a degree and "verifiability not truth" - in my view - means something must be verified to be "true" by an appropriate reliable source. Users compare this to the Essjay scandal but that has sources including the BBC, The Telegraph and many others, this has a few tabloid and local publications - some information from which has been shown to be false - and for an article primarily about a living person (in whatever context and however the title is phrased) I do not think that is acceptable, especially when the information is largely negative. Guest9999 (talk) 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I see a lot of people here basically misapplying BLP1E to put forward a view that could be best summarized as "Delete because it portrays Wikipedia in a way we don't agree with." This controversy is notable, and has been covered by multiple reliable sources. That many editors here disagree with the perspective (or "spin", if you will) that the reliable sources have on the controversy should not bear at all on the decision to keep or delete this article. Unfortunately, many editors are simply substituting their own perspective ("spin") for that of the reliable sources, and demanding that it be deleted. Unitanode 00:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Userfy Wikipedia should not become a site devoted mostly to its own history. For many devoted Wikipedians the elections of Arbcom are much more important than, say, Iran 2009 presidential elections but for the readers of the site the inner working of Wikipedia has zero importance. Thus, notability of all the Wikipedia-related staff should be triple checked and in this case it is certainly not here. Aditionally there are significant WP:BLP issues Alex Bakharev (talk) 01:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still strong delete: here's the hitch, the newspaper sources were rubbish, in the current version we're sourcing Wikipedia diffs to rebut them (navel-gazing or what? What on earth does WP:RS have to say?). NB I am not !voting like this in order to "preserve Wikipedia's reputation" - the current article is probably the only place on the internet you can get the real story and see that much of what the news media are said is junk! So please stop telling me that I'm part of some great cover-up conspiracy. Skomorokh is bang on the banana. TheGrappler (talk) 02:15, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This is quickly devolving. The very fact that you write, "the current article is probably the only place on the internet you can get the real story" shows why this article needs to exist, sans the original research of citing WP itself to refute the perspective of the reliable sources. It doesn't matter one whit what the perspective of various editors of the project is, but rather what the reliable sources have to say. Disagree with their perspective all you like, but it remains true that the story has received wide coverage, and has become a controversy notable in its own right. That so many editors are convinced that they are right and the sources are wrong doesn't change this fact. Unitanode 02:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Disagree with their perspective all you like" - it's not the perspective that's the problem, but that there are factual errors. If we know sources are incorrect, why should we run with them? The sources are simply, and clearly, not of a standard that can be relied upon in an article with WP:BLP concerns. What we currently have in the article would in many ways be more suitable for a press release - in terms of explaining what the controversy is, and how it relates to the Wikipedia diffs. It might even be suitable as a page in Wikipedia: space (which seems a good spot to document Wikipedian history). It ain't suitable, surely, for a mainspace article - "Wikipedia, the encyclopedia that cites its own diffs"? So in some sense you are correct, in many ways the article needs the Wikipedian slant taken out, but if we do that then we get an article that has fatal sourcing problems. That and, frankly, I'm still not convinced that just because something gets widespread news coverage it is inherently notable, especially if the coverage essentially consists of one story being churned over, translated and rewritten between dozens of newspapers. Just look in your newspaper right now - virtually ever story in it will have been covered in other papers too, even the fairly minor ones, but they probably won't all get their own article on WP. There's a fair chance that some of those facts will be incorporated in suitable summary form into other, larger, articles though - which might make more sense as a fate for this article's content. I also do wonder about the possibility of shifting the coverage onto WikiNews instead of Wikipedia (honestly, have a browse round WikiNews, it's interesting to see what's there, and compare it to what you get off the "Random article" button on Wikipedia. This helps attune one's senses of whether you are looking at something which is an encyclopedic subject, or actually a news article. At the moment we have what is basically a news article.) TheGrappler (talk) 03:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That argument as given doesn't work well. A lot of the sources do have serious problems. The Daily Mail for example can't even get the definition of sockpuppeting correct (they conflate it with astroturfing). Unconditionally Relying on sources that we know aren't correct is simply not ok. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 6

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

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}}.

Delete per Iridescent, Jennavecia, and others. No ... just no. Mr.Z-man 05:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're wrong. 76.208.69.190 (talk) 21:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The detailed references, complete with Wikipedia edit diffs and links to user contributions, convince me only that this article is not encyclopedic. There is a positive feedback loop between news media (wanting gossip) and Wikipedia (publishing it). A contributor does bad stuff here; it's reported there; we use the reports to justify an article here; that encourages more reports there; we do even more articles here... It's not exactly applicable, but I invoke WP:DENY to request that this pointless article be deleted to break the loop. The article has been given a title that attempts to avoid deletion as a negative WP:BLP1E. However, it is clear that it is an attack article – it doesn't matter if the attack is warranted or not; it is just not appropriate for an encyclopedia. Johnuniq (talk) 05:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Last comment. I've been looking back through other deletion discussions to get some perspective on this one. I've hesitated to make this post, as I don't want it to be construed as an attack on the individuals recommending deletion. However, I feel it must be noted that the deletion recommendations in this discussion are some of the weakest I've come across in my perusing of other discussions. BLP is cited again and again, when the very similar Essjay controversy article exists, and has for quite some time. Quite simply, there are no arguments that don't simply boil down to "we don't like the way the reliable sources are telling story so delete". This is just not acceptable in any way. Unitanode 05:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, an awful lot of people are arguing, as I do, that this is a total non-event, utterly lacking in notability, and that this would be obvious if any site other than Wikipedia had been involved. It's just not that important folks! Groomtech (talk) 06:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's your last comment. While you find our arguments, citing BLP based on the fact that the sources used have been deemed wholly unreliable and riddled with inaccuracies, weak; I find that the keep arguments in this discussion are some of the most disgusting I've seen in a BLP-related AFD. We're not censoring criticism, we're not protecting one of our own. The sources are wrong. They don't accurately explain the workings of Wikipedia, and much less and more importantly, they don't accurately explain the Boothroyd controversy. If an accurate story had hit the media and spread like wild fire, as happened with the Essjay controversy, we'd not be having this debate. As it is, however, the situation is not being reliably reported, thus, as far as we should be concerned, it fails WP:V and thus WP:N. We have our own, 100% accurate internal references to write something in our own project space. If there is one reliable third-party source accurately presenting the information, as has been suggested above, then we have something to throw into one of our Wikipedia articles (history or whatever). But for a stand-alone article, we've got internal controversy being inaccurately reported on an otherwise non-notable living individual. The controversy is a hit to the projects already tarnished reputation. To keep such an article just further examples how this project is failing to uphold BLP standards at any level above pathetically. لenna vecia 18:37, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that this comment applies to the one preceding mine, but thought it worth discussing anyway. It seems to be about declaring sources unreliable ("wrong") because we, or some of us, know. WP:V explicitly states that the criterion for inclusion is "not whether we think it is true". Although I agree with the conclusion, for other reasons, I think it important to understand why Wikipedia as a topic gets special treatment. Groomtech (talk) 21:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, at least not beyond the fact that many editors don't understand how non-notable it is. (1) General interpretation of WP:V, see WP:REDFLAG, which covers "claims that are contradicted by the prevailing view within the relevant community". The relevant community in this case is Wikipedia, and the prevailing view within Wikipedia is that most of the claims by the press are wrong or misleading. "Exceptional claims in Wikipedia require high-quality sources. If such sources are not available, the material should not be included." (2) The standards in WP:BLP are stricter than WP:V: "[Biographical material] must adhere strictly to all applicable laws in the United States". Making misleading claims when we know they are misleading would be libel. Also: "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link." These sources are of dubious value because get most things wrong. Also: "When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. [...] In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality." (3) From WP:UNDUE: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject." Note that it says "to the subject", not "to Wikipedia". --Hans Adler (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Hans Adler is, perhaps, the best worded, most reasoned delete argument in this discussion. Very well explained and linked. Thank you. لenna vecia 22:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Strong keep) Whether the story is true or not, a controversy is an event that involves people disapprove or approve about. Just take Scientology for example, there must be people approving their actions and people against it. But removing them from history or references isn't going to solve the problem. I completely agree Unitanode's opinion. If the discussion is to defend Wikipedia's disputes over accuracy or rejecting its criticism, then the comments suggesting deletion are quite weak. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:48, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Still Delete — as I said ages ago. And this 7 day idea was a Bad Idea™ — it amounts to drama-prolongation (we're at 133kb). Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:35, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Keep) I'm just curious, can you tell me what is the bad idea (with ™ on it)? --98.154.26.247 (talk) 06:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Drama is not inherently a sign that something is a bad idea. We need to have discussions sometimes and they will be heated when many people have strong opinions. That's just the way things go. The important part there is that we strive to keep the conversation civil. Although there have been some minor lapses I think this hasn't gone that badly. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — Hey, look! It's back! With 'calm' tags ;) So can weez plz haz it goez awaz 'ginz tomorrow? Cheerz, Jack Merridew 10:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Don't speak too soon .... See Wikinews draft (and flawed nom. for deletion) here. Esowteric | Talk 10:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This has no encyclopedic merit at all. Majorly talk 17:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThis is navel-gazing of the most embarrassing sort. // BL \\ (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reluctant delete~~Neutral Nothing on the BBC. Nothing on ITV. Nothing in The Times. Nothing in the Guardian. If even one of these reported on it, it would be enough to save the article. If neither of these outlets find this newsworthy, for us to keep it would do nothing but damage our credibility. Blueboy96 22:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC) Change to Neutral, per the cite from The Independent--agreed, it's of comparable standing to the Times and Guardian. However, I don't think it's EVER appropriate to source from a Wikipedia contribution history. Blueboy96 14:04, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. There is also a citation to an article in The Independent, surely of comparable significance to The Times or The Guardian. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: TV coverage does not necessarily apply, as they often cherry pick from just a few really notable events and some stories wouldn't come over well on the TV. I know writers who've sold books by the million who haven't received much TV news coverage. As for the Times, the Independent is comparable. Esowteric | Talk 11:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Try Wikinews. Esowteric | Talk 22:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even in its relatively stable state currently it reads like a non-event. Sorry, this may be huge deal, for a bit, on Wikipedia, for some, but fails notability otherwise. That the sources get key information wrong ala poor tabloidy journalism also doesn't help. I'm afraid this fulfills the wp:duck test of being an attack page. It also violates BLP on sourcing grounds and I see little good of having it here. As scandals go this is pretty lightweight, even by Wikipedia scandal metrics. -- Banjeboi 23:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources noted by Cirt. It's a notable controversy. The nominators's claims that this is a "non-event" is voided by all the coverage, the claim that it's "unintellible for someone outside the Wikipedia community" appears to be untrue for the current version. And I don't see any more WP:BLP concerns than there would be for Essjay controversy. Of course, we could always delete it and then just recreate it later when there's even more coverage of Wikipedia sweeping it under the rug. --Pixelface (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By its nature as the world's largest encyclopaedia, anything that creates a bit of a wiki-stir becomes news-fodder for a lazy journo with columns to fill (or, in the case of the Mail, an political agenda to push). Its time we stopped peddling this self-referential crap. This particular incident is already chip paper, and if anything, deserves only a line or two in Criticism of Wikipedia (which it already has). Rockpocket 00:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peregrine Fisher. X MarX the Spot (talk) 01:13, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There are big signs saying that this is not a majority vote, and yet when Daniel accidentally prematurely closed this debate, he said, "Therefore, the only way to determine which argument is applied in situations like this is to determine what portion of the community agrees with either - the discussion below shows a stronger agreement with the belief that this does not meet the standard for inclusion", but that seems to me to be treating this rather like a majority vote. Is there not a better approach here with respect to policy? Consider the recent deletion review for Rognvald Richard Farrer Herschell, 3rd Baron Herschell, where a slight majority of comments were for deletion, but where the article was kept. There are explanatory comments there like, "We don't look at these discussions purely in voting terms. The emphatic principle of WP:DGFA is When in doubt, don't delete." And a second person endorsed the keeping of the article "as a valid reading of strength of arguments. We don't vote on Wikipedia, so the exact number of votes is irrelevant. Both sides have good points, so no consensus is the correct outcome." Applying that logic would seem to suggest that if, as Daniel concluded, there are valid arguments on both sides, we should not count votes but conclude "no consensus" and therefore keep the article (or keep the material under a new David Boothroyd article). I offer this as an attempt to interpret policy; not as a vote. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- ... although, that said, the above line of reasoning should perhaps be over-ridden by WP:BLP concerns. Bondegezou (talk) 17:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Votes that boil down to "navel-gazing", "I don't like it" and "I don't like it, either" should not be given anything like as much weight as reasoned arguments. Esowteric | Talk 11:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sufficient notability hasn't been asserted, I'm not going to regurgitate the comments of the numerous other users above me. Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 11:20, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still with us Steve? In terms of exits you're competing with Nelly M. ;) X MarX the Spot (talk) 14:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I'm still here :) Steve Crossin ^Talk/_{Help us mediate!} 22:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another comment. Several people in this discussion clearly have had past interactions with Mr Boothroyd and have views about his contributions to Wikipedia — some good, some bad. We should recognise that these can colour our views of the article. On a quick review, I am the only person who has recused himself from saying 'keep' or 'delete' on the basis of past interactions with Mr Boothroyd on Wikipedia. I have explained what those past interactions were (edit disputes with Fys in late 2007). I should also say that I often argued with Mr Boothroyd on Usenet in years gone by. I offer that as an approach to deal with any possible conflicts of interest. Bondegezou (talk) 11:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What matters here on Wikipedia does not generally speaking matter much in the real world. It's just drama, like many other dramas. Orderinchaos 14:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after reading through the arguments pro and con, I find the argument that our own logs prove the sources are misleading, and hence not reliable for our purpose, convincing. The picture edit is a non-issue on several levels (fairly accurate edit summary, fair-use vs. free-use, etc.) While Boothroyd might be notable enough to keep, this article definitely isn't.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete After wading through every post above (and ignoring "per"s) I have come to the conclusion that BLP (which is far too often bent on WP) is the overriding issue. Anyone who wishes to track the issue can use "search" and find other cases in the past which have not led to pseudo-biographies. I would rather omit a handful which should be here than allow ones which do not rationally qualify as notable to anyone but WP people to exist in mainspace. The primary obligation here is to BLP, and that pretty much says "delete." Collect (talk) 16:35, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Having read through the sources, I find they just aren't reliable, and that includes The Independent and the Daily Mail. In order to inflate this into a scandal, some of the sources imply that this person was trying to influence discussions by participating in them under different user names -- but I've never seen any evidence of that, anywhere. The edits to the David Cameron article appear to be sincere attempts to make the article better, with some edits helping Cameron's image, some hurting, so the conflict of interest seems mostly technical, although he shouldn't have done it. If this were presented without exaggeration, there wouldn't be a news story big enough to report on, and since nearly all the inaccuracies and exaggerations I see in the news articles are attempts to make something more out of this than there is, I find the news articles are not reliable sources. In fact, the news articles appear to be more partisan than the Wikipedia edits. We need good, reliable sources for articles, which are absent in this article, and we shouldn't be pointing readers to unreliable sources. If we step back from policies and guidelines and just consider the purpose of a Wikipedia article, we should recognize that it's supposed to be to inform readers about subjects notable enough to be worth the time for someone to read. This subject doesn't make the grade. I think some of the information on Blacketeer's minor no-no's is worth inclusion somewhere on Wikipedia, possibly on a page about ArbCom's history, but this subject hasn't been shown to be worthwhile in article space. -- Noroton (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"If we step back from policies and guidelines and just consider the purpose of a Wikipedia article, we should recognize that it's supposed to be to inform readers about subjects notable enough to be worth the time for someone to read." - Good point. لenna vecia 22:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Self referential NN nonesence. Ceoil (talk) 17:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A rather unimportant event. Not everything mentioned in the news is notable. --Apoc2400 (talk) 22:26, 14 June 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. Daniel (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Zappia (football administrator)

Clear WP:BLP1E violation. The man is notable for nothing other than his (alleged) recent misdeeds. Any notable and encyclopedic content about the subject is best placed in the relevant articles about his employers, Cronulla-Sutherland Sharks and previously Parramatta Eels. Mattinbgn\^talk 13:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article represents WP:ONEEVENT. The original author has an axe to grind with rugby league issues [70]. WWGB (talk) 13:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of sports-related deletion discussions. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator and ImperatorExercitus, as well doesn't meet WikiProject Rugby league notability essay rule 8. The Windler talk 21:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above Mattlore (talk) 00:22, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Melburnian (talk) 05:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I checked the news databases, and as far as I can tell he's only had trivial mentions in the media prior to the current event. Lots of trivial mentions, but all of the "person X met with Tony Zappia to ..." variety where person "x" was the subject - certainly not enough to establish notability. After recent events things may change, but as things stand I agree with the nom: clear WP:ONEEVENT. - Bilby (talk) 07:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject is not significantly notable outside of the context of this article. GW (talk) 11:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not agree more with the nomination that brings this article to AfD.--VS ^talk 12:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Very clearly WP:ONEEVENT. Based on news coverage to date, after this event is over the subject will slip into obscurity. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BLP1E Orderinchaos 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) 03:38, 11 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trino (video game)

Unremarkable software with a limited Xbox 360 web-only release. Recommend we Delete as it fails any notability test. Trevor Marron (talk) 12:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 'web-only'? By this rationale, all games that are only available on Xbox Live Arcade, Playstation Network, or WiiWare should be deleted. I'd prefer if we did not go down that slippery slope. Vodello (talk) 13:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've just spent some time to fully expand out Xbox Live Community Games, with the intent that the Games section of this article can house games such as Trino (which I've included already) that are on the edge of being notable. Suggest merge with redirect to there. --MASEM (t) 21:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Currently has not received any significant coverage. No objection to inclusion on the Community Games article. Parenthetical title not suitable for a redirect, though? Marasmusine (talk) 10:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable per lack of secondary sources. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 13:03, 10 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Creating public Communities

Non-notable website and web users' group. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

the site Creating public Communities is edited after WikiDan61s comment. the updated version has references, categories, Citing sources and more appropriate citations from reliable sources.from HjK — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs)

Comment But still does not assert notability per WP:WEB, WP:GROUP, or the more generic WP:N. The single reference given does not even mention the group (either by name or by acronym). A Google search does not provide any insight into this group's existence or significance. The inline citations that are provided are either primary sources, foreign Wikipedia articles (Wikipedia itself should NOT be considered a reliable source), or links to external sites that make little or no mention of CPC. It should also be noted that there may be a significant conflict of interest in that the group's founder (Hjørdis Kurås) and the article's author (HJKInfo) are quite similar. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's well intentioned, but it is simply not notable, sorry. See refs in comment immediately above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is WP:GROUP and thats mentioned HJK (may stand for) and google resaults 17 400 000 for cpc-(been through all the sites, i do not think So) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 14:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you understand the meaning of WP:GROUP. This is a Wikipedia guideline defining what notability means in terms of groups such as CpC. It doesn't mean that EVERY group gets to have a Wikipedia page, it means that only groups meeting the criteria get to have a page. The criteria involve reliable independent coverage in secondary sources. This type of coverage cannot be found for CpC. And yes, there are over 30 million hits for the term "CPC" on the English language Google, so to limit the results, I searched for "Creating public Communities", and found only two relevant hits: the organization's own website and a mention of their existence at the Atelier Nord website. No gNews hits. And finally, yes, HjK may stand for any number of things, but when the user named Hjkinfo edits an article about an organization run by Hjørdis Kurås, my nose twitches. That is actually beside the point, actually, as the conflict of interest is not really the problem with the article. It is really all about notability, and lack thereof. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@@Alan Wilkins (playwright) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search This article is about the British playwright. For other uses, see Alan Wilkins (disambiguation). This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help delete this article —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 14:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making irrelevant commentary about unrelated articles. Since the Alan Wilkins article was edited by me, this could be considered a personal attack. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless English secondary sources can be provided verifying notability (not existence). Does it even have a Norwegian WP page? Disembrangler (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HjK may stand for any number of things, but when the user named Hjkinfo edits an article about an organization run by Hjørdis Kurås, my nose twitches.this is a personal threath. the cpc project exists in 40 languages, also english, and how many hits at google is not a criteria for wikipedia. it has reliable sources, and english is not only spoken in britain, both ex refernces can be translated to english —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 15:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC) tips: ttranslate to arabic and you will find more info —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hjkinfo (talk • contribs) 15:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Sufficient citations are given for verification. It should be noted that the nominator (WikiDan61 (talk · contribs)) has had his article nominated for deletion by me, and may be nominating this article in retaliation. HJK —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.159.18.71 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only one vote per editor please. This anon IP editor (who conveniently signs his posts "HJK" has already voted under the id Hjkinfo (talk · contribs). Please also note that this article was nominated for deletion before HJK nominated my article for deletion, so if any retaliation is taking place, it is on his part. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:03, 10 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Lennon

Semi-professional footballer who has never played in a fully professional league, thus failing WP:ATHLETE. Article only created following media coverage of his death, which falls under WP:ONEEVENT or WP:NOTNEWS. Prod removed without explanation. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Giant Snowman 12:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the appropriate? Can't we close the nom and re-open this in a week or so's time? It seems entirely insensitive to have a 'this article is nominated for deletion' banner at the top of a person's entry after he has just died. --Pretty Green (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree with Pretty Green, seems a little insensitive. Are we sure the Scottish 3rd division is not fully professional? It is listed in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_professional_sports_leagues#Football:_Association_Football as a professional league. p.s. how do i name and date these submissions like everyone else?
- The Scottish Third Division is not fully professional - only the SPL and the First Division are - its inclusion on that list is a mistake - see WP:FPL. You can sign your posts using ~~~~. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculous this has an AFD. Dumbarton are notable if you know anything about Scottish football, 2 times Scottish Championship - Has also played in 2nd division. Has a BBC entry - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8089017.stm --Roadblocker (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please familiarise yourself with WP:ATHLETE and WP:NOTNEWS. пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I am familiar with those policies, thank you very much! He has also been signed by 1st division team Partick thistle, even though he did not play. Lennon is notable for a variety of reasons, as is Dumbarton. He has a BBC entry - How much more notable do you really want?--Roadblocker (talk) 12:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you are familiar with them, why are you trying to claim that playing for a semi-professional club that last won the championship in 1892, or the fact that he never played for a club in a fully professional league (Partick), makes him notable? The fact that he has a BBC article about his death is covered by WP:ONEEVENT ("The bare fact that someone has been in the news does not in itself imply that they should be the subject of an encyclopedia entry."). пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Dumbarton FC are notable, even if they are semi-pro these days. He has several articles on other site, not just his death, Respected newspapers and more from the BBC. --Roadblocker (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, Dumbarton are notable, but their players are not unless they have played for a club in a higher division; that's why WP:ATHLETE exists. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Gordon Lennon just not has articles on his death, as people would like to think on AFD. As I mentioned before he has featured in articles in respected newspapers and more from the BBC.. If this deletion gets passed I will have to think twice about contributing to wikipedia. An utter shambles. And not to mention the idiotic AFD policies. --Roadblocker (talk) 12:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete typical case of WP:RECENTISM about a non-notable footballer who never played in a fully professional league. And I am sorry but the fact he died at 26 does not make him notable (WP:ONEEVENT applies, as noted above). --Angelo (talk) 12:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:ATHLETE is supplemental to the GNG, not a replacement for it. Multiple items of non-trivial coverage in reliable independent sources exist, so the level he played at is irrelevant. That the article was created in response to a particular event does not imply that the subject is notable only for that event. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you say where these sources are? I see one BBC article about his death and one local newspaper article (from the kind of paper which you could get articles on players in the 9th level of English football). The others are either the websites of clubs that he played for, or a tribute website where anyone can upload a story. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a particular event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, low profile, then a separate biography is unlikely to be warranted". This is what WP:ONEEVENT says. I don't see any evidence of this person being not low profile before his death, do you? --Angelo (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Five seconds Googling resulted in a non-trivial (actually considerably in-depth) article on his signing for Thistle in the Evening Times, which while not a national paper is wider-scoped than is normally considered "local media". Whether or not he actually played for the first team is a bit of a red herring in that instance, because the purpose of checking if he's played or not is to establish whether it's likely that he's received any significant coverage and not the other way around. I'll add it to the article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is it so in-depth? This is a regional minor paper article merely covering his signing, citing a couple words from his boss, and that's all. To me it easily fails WP:RS and does not add any notability. --Angelo (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - The Evening Times is not a "regional minor paper". It has wider circulation than the Sunday Herald, for instance. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - (ec) OK, so now we have two national/regional news stories (three if you count this); two about him signing for a club he never played for, and one about his death. Does this really make him notable? пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wouldn't that Evening Times article fail WP:SPECULATION anyway as it's based on the fact he could perhaps be a half-decent player in the future? --Jimbo^[online] 12:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        No, because the source is doing the speculating and not us. Sports journalism counts as "credible research" for the purpose of #3 of WP:CRYSTAL. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        That is merely your opinion. I think the sentence you're referring to is the following one: "of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not." . Explain me how a non-league footballer can fit within it, because I really can't understand your point. I don't think an article about a non-league or a youth footballer claimed as "promising" by a bunch of sports journalists can be defined a "credible research that embodies predictions". --Angelo (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        So far as sports personalities are concerned, professional sports writers are one of the few available types of reliable secondary sources. You can keep gainsaying if you want, but I don't see that there's much to argue with on that particular point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The article seems based on hear say. He doesn't mention that he has actually seen him play, so what is he basing this prediction on? --Jimbo^[online] 11:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not for us to question the veracity of sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Sports writers only express their own point of view, which is non-neutral by definition. Credible researches should be based on facts rather than personal opinions. --Angelo (talk) 11:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He has played in cup against top flight opposition. Just last year he played against a top flight club in the Scottish League cup. Played against second tier, fully professional sides here and here. Spent five months at a second tier club, where just coming off the bench once would have made him 'notable'. Had BBC stories written about him whilst he was alive: here and here. Not to mention him being a club captain at a club that were twice champions of Scotland, leading them to the Third Division league title. All that without mentioning his death, which is in the top ten most read stories of the international BBC news website and is currently the #1 most read story of the UK BBC news site.--EchetusXe (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, he has played against fully professional clubs in the cup, but not for one. This is why he fails WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 57 13:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Playing against a top-tier team in a tournament could well be taken as competing "at the fully professional level of a sport" as well. IIRC the reason WP:ATHLETE consists of a whole two lines is precisely because firmer guidelines were rejected. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - No it couldn't, by any means, because the team he played for is not fully professional. If he had played for Partick in the cup, that might have been the case, but he didn't. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 13:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, I think this is possibly a case of ignore all rules. A tragic death of a (successful) club captain is an important event in the club's history. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 14:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this article should not be deleted. Although he did not play in a professional league he did play in a professional cup competition and against professional opposition see here. Also he is a footballer who has died whilst still playing which sadly makes the article notable. Johnelwaq (talk) 17:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but as has been explained already, playing again fully professional opposition when you are not fully professional does not confer notability per WP:ATHLETE. And no, dying whilst of playing age does not make a semi-profressional footballer notable. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 17:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete quite clearly fails WP:ATHLETE. Sources provided fails WP:ONEEVENT and WP:RECENTISM. Being a club captain doesn't make you any more notable than anyone else, everbody lives and dies. --Jimbo^[online] 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apart from failing WP:ATHLETE, he sadly didn't acheive anything notable in his career. The only comparison in this field is Marc Burrows who was also a semi-pro who died young, the only difference being he actually did acheive something to make him notable - in the absence of professional appearances, something like this is needed to establish notability. It is always regrettable when a player dies, but a few newspaper articles briefly covering this event really isn't enough. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 19:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ATHLETE says nothing about "notable achievements"; furthermore, as I've argued on WT:FOOTY#Gordon Lennon, it is fairly ridiculous that WP:ATHLETE is being used here as a binary value where a player is simply not notable for football at all should he have not made an appearance professionally, such that any non-footballing event would be counted as "notable for one event". In reality, people are not notable either as one thing or the other - amateur or semi-pro players with other notable aspects to their lives should have some weight on their footballing activities even if they're not defined exclusively by them. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about WP:ATHLETE mentioning notable acheivements, I said he fails WP:ATHLETE and he acheived nothing of note. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 11:18, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It might be only one event but it's a pretty significant event. Mark Chapman only had one event by shooting John Lennon but that was a pretty significant event. Should his entry be deleted under WP:ONEEVENT then ?--Rcclh (talk) 09:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- With all the due respect, he did not kill a famous rockstar, he died in a car crash like thousand of other ordinary people in the Western world. Sad but true. --Angelo (talk) 09:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Indeed. However, "thousand of other ordinary people in the Western world" don't get extensive media coverage in that event, nor did they have professional contracts with football clubs. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:07, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, if you watch the Italian national TV news, you can see news reports about men and women dying at car accidents in an almost-daily basis, but I don't think they are notable only because of that. Sources for them? I can provide them, of course, and no, they're not famous people. Sorry, but this claim of yours is absolutely untrue. --Angelo (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I agree. In this case, reference needs to be made to WP:NEWSBRIEF. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 15:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Obviously(212.22.3.8 (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete No substantial arguments have been presented that counter WP:ATHLETE, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS. Eusebeus (talk) 13:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I concur that the individual does not meet inclusion guidelines spelled out @ WP:ATHLETE & WP:ONEEVENT. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per notable career, per other keep sayers.--Judo112 (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep career seems notable in the scottland and i dont see any reason for deletion. good sourcing to.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 14:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a player whose career highpoint was the championship of a non-professional league where the average crowd is about 500 is not notable, and he seems to have received no substantial coverage other than for dying -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 15:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to me that the arguements against keeping (i.e. that he has not played at a high enough level) are discredited by the fact that he has died before he has been able to prove that he could have played at a higher level. Darryl.matheson (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your claims of "he has died before he has been able to prove that he could have played at a higher level" is exactly what WP:CRYSTAL says - what you say is just unverifiable. --Angelo (talk) 16:30, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, it doesn't. It's stated that he was a promising player in the sources (indeed, one consists almost entirely of such discussion); #3 of WP:CRYSTAL allows for the detailing of speculation so long as it's in the form of "credible research" from a reliable source and not the personal interpretation of a WP editor. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. Like mentioned by Angelo, I don't feel future speculation is enough to lend notability. While yes it is indeed very tragic that this athlete died at such a young age, a young death doesn't make someone inherently notable. To me, that is like saying any time a child dies, they are notable because they "had a bright future". Tragic? Yes. Notable? Not as much. However, I'm abstaining on a vote to keep or delete. I am admittedly not as familiar with the various football leagues of the UK as I could be. →^Jog_Con← 22:04, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons that EchetusXe stated. Also, the fact that he was the captain of the side should make a difference to his notability, as compared to merely a backup player. CanaryOJ (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason why being captain of a team would confer extra notability. Being captain is not an especially significant role really -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If this guy was so famous, why is it that his death was the only thing that instigated the creation of a Wikipedia article on him? Just because he got some news coverage, including coverage on the BBC News website, doesn't mean he is notable enough to be on Wikipedia, as per the notability guidelines. It's real sad and all that he had the potential to become more notable, but at the time he died he wasn't a person of note. MaxCosta (talk) 01:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That isn't a valid reason. I've created articles on former players after their deaths were reported (eg 1). Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Our coverage of living players is hardly complete; it is obvious that any media coverage of a player is likely to spur on the creation of an article. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Captain of a championship winning Scottish Senior league side, and his death has resulted in quite a fair amount of media coverage. Bully Wee (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Receiving coverage only for dying is a classic case of WP:ONEEVENT -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 19:34, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Also find the timing of this attempted deletion highly insensitive. 8lgm (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Not important; hardly anyone knows about him; makes great source of info about him (life and death) KSWarrior8 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Surely that is a rationale for deleting the article, not keeping it? пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hard to articulate my reasoning but I feel a combination of things means he should just about scrape it. He has a decent length career in the Scottish League (although semi-professional, it's not non-league as has been stated), he was a club captain (which makes him a big part of the club) received minor coverage before his death, and a lot afterward. A guy who made one appearance for a lowly League Two club would be notable as per WP:ATHLETE but another who had a 20 year career in the division below would not be? There seems to be very little leeway in that guideline and perhaps it should not be such a black and white rule. 81.96.65.76 (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He may not completely satisfy the guidelines but he was club captain of a notable club and his death earned considerable press coverage. There are infinitely less notable players who do satisfy the guidelines, and therefore I believe those guidelines should occasionally be stretched to include players like Lennon. Bretonbanquet (talk) 11:19, 14 June 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. لenna vecia 19:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arnold Buttigieg

Footballer who fails WP:ATHLETE as he has never played in a fully-professional league or competition. Also fails WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 11:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am also nominating the following football players for the same reasons;

Marcelo Pereira
Trevor Templeman
Clive Brincat‎
Dylan Kokavessis
Chris Camilleri (footballer)
Renato Conceição‎
Christian Cassar‎
Mark Barbara
~~Orosco Anonam~~ - has played internationally for Malta
Shawn Tellus

--Jimbo^[online] 12:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, non-notable players. Also, don't forget to put AfD notices on the articles of the 'also nominated' players! GiantSnowman 12:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. --Jimbo^[online] 12:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Maltese league is not fully professional, so all players fail WP:ATHLETE. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 12:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment On the other hand, Marsaxlokk FC plays the Maltese Premier League (the champion in 2006-7). Maltese league is semi-professional, but where did you find, that Marsaxlokk FC is an amateur club? According to this site the club is professional. I consider it unfair to nominate tens of Maltese articles just because the clubs are not fully professional. We have thousands of very similar articles about European footballers, and the only difference is, that they have professional contracts. Otherwise they play at the same level. Maltese clubs also compete in European cups, so everything is the same (or very similar). Why should they be excluded?? Because of one word in the WP:ATHLETE criteria? In that case the system is imperfect. --Vejvančický (talk) 14:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to do with their contracts or club they play for. WP:ATHLETE has ruled out players who've played for clubs 10 times the size of these Maltese clubs because they have not played in fully-professional leagues. Hardly unfair nominating an article because it fails a very basic criteria. --Jimbo^[online] 15:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I totally disagree, I think most of these have been nominated unfairly, how the article Orosco Anonam came up for question I will never know, the majority of these players listed for deletion have played in European competitions, surely that makes them qualify to be saved, I also found the articles for Pierre Aquilina, Michael Galea and Jean Pierre Mifsud Triganza up for deletion and again all have played international football for Malta. Stew jones (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I also thought it maybe useful to mention an article that was up for deletion not so long ago, eventually after discussion, the result was that it should kept, primarily down to the fact that this article was about a coach who won the Maltese Premier League title with Valletta and not a great deal more, see for yourselves Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Zammit (footballer). Stew jones (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these subjects fail WP:ATHLETE. --Angelo (talk) 12:29, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why do we need to clog up AfD for such articles when the WP:ATHLETE guideline is clear in terms of establishing notability? Eusebeus (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok well it looks like everyone has made there mind up on deleting all my hard work, now forgive me, but I was always under the impression that anyone who made an international appearance for their country is noticable enough to warrant an article, so if i am correct, can anyone explain to me why the articles for Michael Galea and Jean Pierre Mifsud Triganza have been deleted off, when Michael Galea has played five times for Malta and Jean Pierre Mifsud Triganza has played once for Malta, and here is the proof http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/4223.html and http://www.national-football-teams.com/player/29540.html Stew jones (talk) 17:30, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply because the PROD expired, they were nominated because of lack of verifiability. You should have contested the PROD if you disagreed. --Jimbo^[online] 08:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply well then big man how about you get them reinstated, you seem to have a lot of power on here, so seen as you have made a massive mistake in nominating them for deletion, you should get them back shouldn't you really Stew jones (talk) 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. there's no need for anyone to have any "a lot of power on here" to get these articles restored. I have asked the deleting administrators to restore them, as you could have done. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any of the players who have not played for the national team or in fully professional leagues. There's no unfairness about this. Malta is too small to sustain a fully professional football league, so any Maltese footballers who cut the notability mustard in club football ply their trade in other countries - I'm not going to look them up now but I believe that a couple have played for Barnsley in the Championship in England, for example, and I'm sure that others have played in other fully professional leagues. I also don't see anyone disagreeing that any players that have played for the Maltese national team should be considered notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding:

Jean Pierre Mifsud Triganza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I deleted it due to expired PROD that asserted "Footballer fails WP:ATHLETE notability as he has never played in a fully-professional league or compeition. Also clearly fails WP:GNG" and nobody bothered to watchlist or complain or provide refutation in over a week. I have restored it temporarily because it's being discussed (consider as part of this bundled AfD rather than routing through a separate DRV discussion). I don't know anything about these clubs and level of play: please explicitly discuss whether this person meets WP:ATHLETE and other relevant criteria so closing admin can decide its fate. DMacks (talk) 20:00, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable soccer players. --Carioca (talk) 19:55, 13 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sweet tree

One of the least notable articles I've come across, how it has lasted 6 months is beyond me! PROD template was removed before so now it has to come to AfD. Smartse (talk) 11:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands it is non notable. No References or sources to say why it is important. G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't find reliable sources for this tree. I also can't find alternative content since there are a lot of "Sweet Tree" businesses that crowds my google search, none of which stands out as notable. Google Books and Google News did not give good leads either.--Lenticel ^(talk) 13:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organisms-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Google finds no evidence of notability, and the article provides none. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:MADEUP. Even if the tree is recognized locally, it's not notable and it doesn't go by this made-up name. Drawn Some (talk)
I was going to suggest speedy deletion, but there actually is a place in Massachusetts called Sweet Tree Service created by the Sweet family. But the website doesn't say anything about a single tree being named for the company or the family, so delete. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, and my previous prod [71]. Bearian (talk) 17:35, 8 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Assembly

No references, no external links, mostly orphaned, seems to be either fictional or an extremely minority wish, could be a joke article. Joowwww (talk) 10:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as nom. AFAICR this was a recurring, spurious topic once included in Kent but deleted. Example: [72].--Old Moonraker (talk) 10:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. If someone references the article to an official proposal, I'd reconsider. Kbthompson (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless sources are cited as to who is calling for this. As it stands, it's a soapbox article. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 20:00, 8 June 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, article author agreed to delete, rewrote content at List of cases of police brutality. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ronnie Holloway

This incident is regrettable but not notable enough for an encyclopedia article, even if widely reported, per WP:NOT#NEWS ("Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events") and WP:BLP1E. See also Joseph R. Rios III about the same incident, also at AfD here. Even if combined into a single article about the incident, this would fail WP:NOT#NEWS. Delete. JohnCD (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nomination - editors should also consider Joseph R. Rios III which is similarly nominated for deletion (as this one should be) on the basis of a violation of WP:BLP and WP:1E.--VS ^talk 10:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons I gave at WP:Articles for deletion/Joseph R. Rios III, copied here: "This is just a news piece, and is not notable no matter how many recent news stories it happens to show up in. As an aside, the person who brought this to DRV did so by claiming that it gets lots of gnews hits, but actually used a ridiculously broad search term; with a proper search term it gets a grand total of 4 hits." rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from the above mentioned discussion) Thank you for showing me how to include google news searches here. I had already asked for that as you can see here. Had you looked up the source code for my link you would have seen that I had given the full name and only wikipedia cut off everything after the first space because generally after a space the description of the link follows. I had not been aware of the possibility to use %20. for a space, I tried _ as is used in wikipedia but that does not work for google news. There are now several hundreds of pages on the net mentioning "Joseph R Rios" and 14 topics at google news, one each from the main German and the main Swiss news magazine, one from a big Turkish one, one from the Czech Republic, and of the other 28 which to me seem to be all US articles, 13 are distinct, some of them from major sources (CNN, Fox, ABC). Xodó (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Unfortunately there are lots of people who get beaten up by police all around the world, every day. Sorry, but it's not notable, even if there was a minor subsequent demo. Johnuniq (talk) 04:50, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as the proper article has been found where to include the information unless the event turns out to have bigger consequences than can be seen now and that would make the person notable here. Note List of cases of police brutality. Xodó (talk) 06:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Enter Within

The article's author states he is the producer of this film. All the references are networking sites and the film festival apparently exists only as a group site on Youtube. There is no reference on IMDB. The name "Enter Within" is inherently difficult to google but as far as I can tell there are no independent 3rd party references to this film on the net or on google news. In short this is a Youtube clip by S Beckman currently seen by 73 viewers. It has no obvious notability. Prod removed with no improvement in the article Porturology (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree, I couldn't find any in independent sources for the film either. After speaking with the author he understands this and accepts that the article does not qualify as notable. --Noosentaal^·talk· 12:54, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice. If.when the film gets coverage and gains notability, allow it back. Currently I find no RS on the film, though yes it exists, and even less on the festival where it won its award. But this all can change. Perhaps userfy to author in anticipation of its possible return? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. A non-notable award at a non-notable "festival" does not establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 16:54, 9 June 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 the Marvin Gaye song. Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Want You (Madonna song)

AfDs for this article:

Fails all notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo only, album track only, no single, no chart performance, no awards. Paul75 (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with I Want You (Marvin Gaye song). That seems to be the true article for this song, and it is appropriate to deal with the cover version there. That would be consistent with how covers are usually treated, including covers much more prominent than this one. Rlendog (talk) 15:13, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with the original song. Hekerui (talk) 18:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fritzpoll (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with I Want You (Marvin Gaye song). It's normal to have cover versions as part of the original song's article. --JD554 (talk) 13:43, 8 June 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 deleted. Unanimous consensus to delete after article creator moved content to List of cases of police brutality. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 16:50, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph R. Rios III

Originally deleted as G10. Violates WP:BLP and WP:1E, and is heavily slanted against Mr. Rios. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 09:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I note the original speedy deletion of this article which to my mind was correct on the basis of a violation of WP:BLP and WP:1E and that this article has now been given a chance through this process - nevertheless in my opinion it should be deleted at this time, as per the nomination.--VS ^talk 09:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use abbreviations most people are not familiar with. "WP:BLP" means wikipedia rules concerning biographies of living people, "WP:1E" means rules on notability. I see that the person may not be notable. However, the event made the media around the world: (google news shows how often he is mentioned in electronic media.) Furthermore, currently the information is included at Passaic, New Jersey, which I do not think it is the right place because it is just a coincidence that it happened right there. It would certainly not be covered in the article about New York City, had it happened there. I did not mean to slant it, just repeated what can be read everywhere in the news, but the video is pretty straightforward, a man who does not even resist gets beaten. The additional information that he is 49 years old and mentally disabled makes it more of a scandal, and the fact that he is an Afro-American and that previous attacks on Afro-Americans have led to uprisings makes it newsworthy around the world. ~~Keep~~ or find a better article where to include it. Xodó (talk) 09:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I now found the right article where to include it: List of cases of police brutality. Everyone ok with that? I hope there won't be riots which would make the event more notable. Xodó (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. See also Ronnie Holloway about the same incident, also at AfD here. Even if they were combined into a single article about the incident, it would fail WP:NOT#NEWS: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events." This sort of incident is regrettable but not uncommon, and it is not historically notable. JohnCD (talk) 10:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, textbook WP:BLP1E. Will anyone remember this in two years' time? Stifle (talk) 10:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For the same reasons as said above. This is just a news piece, and is not notable no matter how many recent news stories it happens to show up in. As an aside, the person who brought this to DRV did so by claiming that it gets lots of gnews hits, but actually used a ridiculously broad search term; with a proper search term it gets a grand total of 4 hits. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete for reasons above. As stated before - even if his name appears in 100 news stories (counting largely identical article in different media sources as somehow distinct) this article does not satisfy our criteria for inclusion. TheGrappler (talk) 19:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for showing me how to include google news searches here. I had already asked for that as you can see here. Had you looked up the source code for my link you would have seen that I had given the full name and only wikipedia cut off everything after the first space because generally after a space the description of the link follows. I had not been aware of the possibility to use %20. for a space, I tried _ as is used in wikipedia but that does not work for google news. There are now several hundreds of pages on the net mentioning "Joseph R Rios" and 14 topics at google news, one each from the main German and the main Swiss news magazine, one from a big Turkish one, one from the Czech Republic, and of the other 28 which to me seem to be all US articles, 13 are distinct, some of them from major sources (CNN, Fox, ABC). Xodó (talk) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:BIO. Unfortunately there is lots of violence in the world, every day. This single event is not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 04:53, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, this is no single event. In the media it is several times compared with the case of Rodney King, the police beating of whom led to the Los Angeles riots of 1992 about which our article informs that "53 people died during the riots and thousands more were injured." [73] Xodó (talk) 06:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're not seeing any rioting over this. JoshuaZ (talk) 23:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as BLP1E. Eusebeus (talk) 12:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's SNOWing and any passing admin can delete this now...7 editors in good standing have already given arguments for deletion, and the only person contesting is the article's creator. I won't delete it myself because I participated in the discussion above, but the consensus to delete is clear. Plus, the content has already been merged to List of cases of police brutality. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 13:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I had written above several hours before this comment was made, I do no longer argue for keeping as I have found an article where the content fits better. I had written that I was looking for one right from the start. Please take care to understand the thoughts of those you think you disagree with before you write in a way that could be interpreted as condescending. Xodó (talk) 22:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as the perfect example of a BLP1E article. --Stormie (talk) 09:33, 10 June 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 - Early closure - Snowball, seconded with both a Speedy and a Strong. Marasmusine (talk) 10:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nickelodeon vs Cartoon Network

I'd tag this as a hoax, but I'm not 100% positive. For starters, the game is supposedly a "collaboration between Hanna-Babera (sic)", but Hanna-Barbera simply does not exist past 2001. Also, a google search shows me this site, which appears to be where fans concoct fictitious boxarts. Finally, there is no publisher listed, so even if the game is not a hoax, it would simply be WP:CRYSTAL Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We've knocked down many of these articles, and this is no different at all. A complete hoax involving impossible corporate hurdles to get over and if there are any sources, they're all red herrings. I'd support a G3 tag. Nate • (chatter) 09:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add a G3 tag, but leave the AFD up; reviewing admin can make their own judgement. Yngvarr (t) (c) 09:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well, I don't know that it qualifies under G3 as a "blatant hoax" - I'm wary through reading WP:HOAX - but I personally would consider it such. Do away with it! ~ Amory (talk) 14:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Delete. I agree it doesn't qualify for a speedy, but really, is there any chance this article won't be deleted at the end of this AfD? No. Powers ^T 16:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not really a "blatant hoax", but not notable, either. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 16:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's pretty obvious that this is a hoax and does not exist. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Another one of these hoaxes? Someone needs their connection taken away from them. treelo _radda 09:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as hoax. Edward321 (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, the speedy G3 was declined for this article. --Taelus (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Taelus (talk) 16:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted at creator's request - Peripitus (Talk) 08:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lousnak Abdalian

Completely unsourced autobiographical article. I was able to find no non-trivial references to this person in any third-party source, and no indication that she meets the notability guidelines for actors or artists. Her only film role seems to have been a minor one. L. Pistachio (talk) 09:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Fails WP:BIO. freshacconci talktalk 13:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (although WP has kept worse) A supporting role in Ararat and a role in NFB film ( http://www.onf-nfb.gc.ca/eng/collection/film/?id=53038 ) are not enough for WP:ENT and have not sparked secondary sources. Certainly fails WP:CREATIVE. No multiple or in-depth coverage in secondary sources apparent → fails general WP:BIO as well. Enki H. (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: two news articles (en/fr) of 18-Apr-2002 have been added: both reiterate bio in anticipation of concert that is being promoted, they do not review actual work → not intellectually independent → don't count towards WP:BIO. Enki H. (talk) 04:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above...not really encyclopedic....Modernist (talk) 04:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. No assertion of notability. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Considered nominating it myself... Lithoderm 17:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Seems to meet criteria for speedy, as original author is continuously blanking page. 99.178.163.130 (talk) 04:48, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. As of yet, there is not consensus to suspend bilateral relations AfDs. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Latvia–Slovakia relations

distinct lack of coverage of relations between these 2 nations, mainly multilateral and sport. [74]. there's 1 bilateral agreement I found [75] but would need more coverage of actual bilateral relations. They played a World cup qualifier in 2004 which I know at least one editor would think this means bilateral relations and worthy of inclusion in the article, clearly not. LibStar (talk) 08:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep They are EU and NATO members, Slovakia has an embassy in Riga, etc. Their relations deserve an article. --Turkish Flame ^☎ 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

they deserve an article if they meet WP:N, you haven't provided any reliable sources proving wide coverage of their relations. common membership of EU and NATO does not prove notable relations. LibStar (talk) 13:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable enough for a separate article - leave it to the single country ones. Collect (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article has no useful content and expansion is unlikely. No sources discuss these relations. Fails notability. When we say that the relations between X and Y are not notable, we do not imply there is something wrong with X or Y – "deserves" is not relevant. Any country with a few million people is going to have some relations with almost every other country, but some relations will not be notable. Every country will have a leader who issues announcements. We only have articles on the notable announcements, and we should only have articles on notable relations. Johnuniq (talk) 11:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the new way of handling these (see [[Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations]] and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force). JJL (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can show non-trivial coverage of the topic in independent reliable sources. We can't use WP:SYNTHESIS to create a topic for an article out of bits and pieces we seek out. The topic itself must be notable. Any significant information could be added to other articles with notable topics. Drawn Some (talk) 15:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing that makes these two special over any other pair.--BlueSquadronRaven 20:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnotable and unsubstantial. Eusebeus (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. So they are EU and NATO members. How does that make their RELATIONSHIP notable? If you and I belong to the same country club and say hi in passing on the golf course, is that a relationship? Niteshift36 (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

agree with above, without reliable sources covering actual meetings, common membership doesn't mean you actually talk to each other, maybe over a tea break at a NATO meeting? LibStar (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspend the discussion! The notice from Administrators' noticeboard suggests a no consensus on all of the bilateral relations articles (X-Y Relations). Until further resolutions are made, the discussions should be suspended. See Wikipedia:AN#Proposed_standstill_agreement_on_Bilateral_Relations_articles for more details. --98.154.26.247 (talk) 04:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no, this standstill is purely a proposal that has no standing until endorsed by consensus. others have agreed that existing AfDs will be allowed to run their course. LibStar (talk) 13:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unsurprisingly, third-party in-depth coverage of this relationship seems nonexistent, so we should delete for failing WP:N. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nichole Mikko-Causby

Non notable university student. Only source not from UGA is two sentence quotation in article about student ethics. Award is local. Name of original author suggests possible conflict of interest. skew-t (talk) 08:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Definite WP:COI possibility, therefore it follows that this could be a WP:VAIN violation as well. TaintedZebra (talk) 08:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. A presenter at conferences and a Young Scholars Grant is not sufficiently notable. Johnuniq (talk) 05:09, 9 June 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 Capital One Bowl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Capital One Bowl broadcasters

A user created this list as a sub to Capital One Bowl. I merged them together leaving a message at his talk page and Talk:Capital One Bowl, and he undid without any explanation, claiming I "gotta use the talk page once again". Since the main article is 31kb long and this stub list is only 3kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rey, thanks for correcting your error!--Levineps (talk) 19:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't be rude and condescending. I could find plenty of errors you've made. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was not trying to be rude and/or condescending. I am human and never claimed to be perfect.--Levineps (talk) 19:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Capital One Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:15, 8 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of G rated films

AfDs for this article:

This list is so large as to be unmaintainable. It is also unnecessarily US-centric (there are other countries who rate films G). A self-maintaining category would be far superior. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of PG rated films. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. TaintedZebra (talk) 08:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reason: basically, it cannot be updated regularly. And the list is completely useless. Tris2000 (talk) 10:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unhelpful list that inevitably will become out of date. Also, it is unsourced and impossible to verify in any practical manner. Johnuniq (talk) 11:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is well-suited for a category not a list page. This page brings no value added, and isn't that the point? --Mblumber (talk) 12:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and replace with a category), per WP:SHEESH which I obviously will need to create soon. JJL (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it fails all list guidelines as it is never ending, completely unmaintainable, and unencyclopedic; disagree with suggestions of replacing with a category as such a category, like this page, would be too American-centric and show systematic bias. MPAA ratings are not part of any quality film article by consensus (in neither the prose nor the infobox), unless the rating was highly controversial, so having a list or category of such films seems extra pointless.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Lists are supposed to contribute more than a :Cat can, but this list has little hope of that, as far as I can see. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 16:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As it is hopelessly incomplete it is really unhelpful for anyone. Tavix | Talk 18:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above from the closing admin last time around. One two three... 20:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categories are better suited for this. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 21:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. Categorization will work better. Majoreditor (talk) 02:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are notable films and, at least to many movie-goers in the United States, MPAA ratings are highly relevant and important characteristics of these films. This is an appropriate topic for a stand-alone list. I'll note, for example, that List of NC-17 rated films has citations, an explanatory lede, and has been in existence and avoided AfD nomination for many years, generally demonstrating that it's possible for this type of list to meet minimum Wikipedia guidelines. The fact that MPAA ratings are specific to the United States is a reason that in this case a list may be preferable to a category. (U.S. readers can refer to the list, while non-U.S. can easily ignore it.) I disagree with the claim that the list is unmaintainable--there are probably an average of two or three new G-rated films a month, and many Wikipedia lists keep up with those sorts of updates. The list does need to be improved, but an editor has done a lot of work and should be encouraged to add references, drop pre-MPAA films, and make other changes to fully meet Wikipedia guidelines. BRMo (talk) 03:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOT and a pointless category duplication. Eusebeus (talk) 13:11, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a category is a stupid idea because you would have to have categories for each country the film was screened in. Citius Altius (talk) 03:13, 15 June 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 - keep by Bdb484. Non-admin closure -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mudana

I really want to CSD this, but I may just not know enough about some corner of the world, so let's throw it out here and see if anyone else can figure out what the hell this is about. Bdb484 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article in the Times of India is about Hepatitis-B patients in India, and Mudana village in the Patan district is mentioned there. There is also other evidence of the existence of this village. (IndiaStudyChanel has entry for two villages in India called Mudana. I can't find any informations about Pir Kasam Shah and "Muman history" (though the latter may be "human history" in my opinion) --Vejvančický (talk) 05:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The village exists, in Gujarat and the postal code is 384151, but I can't find anything else about the tomb, so unless something about that is found, it should be removed. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing: Good work, gang. I took out the incomprehensible part and left the material added post-AfD, and it now looks like a reasonable stub. Withdrawn. — Bdb484 (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Andreas Schmidt

I'm hitting this up as a non-notable journalist. Although there are nine "references" they are all very broad and don't mention him or mention him very briefly, nothing significant in that nature. As such, he fails WP:GNG. Tavix | Talk 04:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A bit soon for an AfD with verification only being called on now for the references. Rick Doodle (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Maybe if someone can come up with English language sources that establish notability, but until then....delete. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a very common name but AS (born 1961) doesn't have an article on the German Wiki. I haven't found any unambiguous reference (in German or English) to this individual anywhere which makes me think it's either spurious, or an exaggerated biography of someone who is not very notable anyway. --Klein zach 06:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pladd dot music

Prod by other editor was removed; a partial rewrite did nothing to alleviate the prodder's concerns, I imagine. Article still reads like an ad; worse, the company does not appear to notable per WP:CORP or WP:N--the two references in the local paper provided in the article are not enough to establish notability. Drmies (talk) 04:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw on User talk:Lexigrellengl1101 that the thing had been speedied before, but I cannot tell if that earlier version was much different from this one. If not, some admin can drop a G4 here, maybe. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Definitely reads like an add to me. Lacks references as well. Rick Doodle (talk) 05:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails notability no matter what category you try. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Fails WP:N so badly I'd almost speedy this. TaintedZebra (talk) 08:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Failing WP:N is not a reason to speedy delete an article. Per A7 (which I'm assuming what you'd speedy it under) the company would have to have any assertion of notability, which the article presents, but probably not enough for WP:N. Tavix | Talk 17:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:10, 8 June 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 (G6) by Bubba hotep. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edward Spence (disambiguation)

Delete as an uneeded disambiguation. A hatnote has been placed on Edward Spence if one wants to find Edward F. Spence and therefore the only way to find this page is by typing it in directly, which seem extremely unlikely. Tavix | Talk 04:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete G6 uncontroversial maintenance. So tagged. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 04:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I would have done that but it was already prodded, so I didn't think it would be uncontroversial. Tavix | Talk 04:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Tavix. TaintedZebra (talk) 09:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dingo (wrestler)

Little known independent wrestler with little claim to notability, and questionable verifiability - especially relating to the claim that he is Australian. Winning a couple of small indy titles hardly proves notability. !! Justa Punk !! 04:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As far as I'm concerned , winning at least two titles that are notable enough to have Wikipedia articles is sufficient to establish notability. Since the guy wrestles under such a generic name it may not be super easy to find sources, but I am sure they are out there. (The winning of the titles is established by the current references though.) I'm not sure why the nom would signal out probably the least objectionable fact in the whole article but it takes less than 60 secs to establish that he is Australian:
- Cagematch profile
- Bio @ official homepage

--ThaddeusB (talk) 04:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning minor titles hardly proves notability. Bio requires independent verification. !! Justa Punk !! 04:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Winning one minor title usually doesn't, but winning several often does. He has won at least 5 titles (and the article said three more before you edited it out for referencing reasons), two of which are notable enough for Wikipedia entries. Independent verification is required to establish notability (and has been supplied in the article), but that doesn't mean every detail needs to be independently confirmed. It is silly to say we can't take the guy's own word for it that he is Australian, for example. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the title you deleted as the original source provided did establish that Dingo (then Diamondback Dingo) won the title: "March 28, 2003--Gateway Championship Wrestling: Diamondback Dingo defeated Delirious for the vacant GCW Championship" ... I have also seen title info for this event in other (not technically reliable) sources, so I am confident it is true. That makes 8 titles he has won. --ThaddeusB (talk) 04:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Eight local promotion title wins does not prove notability. Would you mind telling us what part of WP:N that passes, Thaddeus? I say not a part of it. There is a history of wrestlers claiming to be from a country that they really weren't. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only promotion he lists that could be considered anything less than a minor one is ROH and he didn't hold a title in it. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Niteshift said it all. Not notable. TaintedZebra (talk) 09:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of the feds that he won titles in is in any way notable so that wrecks the argument of Thaddeus regarding 8 titles. IWA Mid South appears inactive making this person's current reign hardly notable. Get Dumb 10:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly unnotable. Eusebeus (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: I can see this guy being notable. He has won a few titles, is covered by a few sites, and has worked for ROH. However, out of all the sites within the article. Only two or three could be considered even a little reliable and they aren't even about him. The Solie, the Wrestle Titles, and the Online World of Wrestling refs could be considered a little reliable. IWA is primary and Cage match is still not cleared. For now, no reliable third party sources, I say no.--WillC 13:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable worker. Afkatk (talk) 13:39, 13 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis on video

Contested prod. The only reason I am not tagging this article a speedy G1 (pure gibberish) is that it wasn't eligible under that criterion when I prodded it. It is later edits by the creator that made this article a complete mess. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 03:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't make heads or tails of this. Some sort of weird online art collective? Zetawoof_(ζ) 05:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a mix of a personal essay and an advertisement. JIP | Talk 05:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete under WP:CSD#G1. If this isn't gibberish I don't know what is!! Rick Doodle (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Please, just make it go away. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When I saw this first during NPP I was thinking of G1 and A1, but then decided not to and left the page for a greater mind. At best WP:OR. -SpacemanSpiff (talk) 07:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I think wikipedia could usefully do with articles on the theory of video, they need to be coherent in text. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very much an essay/OR, agree that it's next to impossible to follow. --Deadly∀ssassin 10:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally incomprehensible; I can't even tell what it's supposed to be about. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 17:33, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Maybe this made more sense in the original Norwegian, but the translation is gibberish. This is original research and an essay. I'm used to artspeak, but this is unsalvageable. freshacconci talktalk 11:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide Blondes (professional wrestling)

Not a notable tag team, as the team hasn't won any notable championships and doesn't have any significant third party sources about the team. The information is already located within the articles of the individual members. Nikki♥311 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and badly. Rick Doodle (talk) 06:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor promotion equals minor league. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't see notability.--WillC 13:32, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Afkatk (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable TaintedZebra (talk) 02:30, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of arenas to host NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year

I think this is a classic example of indiscriminate collection of information. The fact that arenas hosted both NBA Finals and Stanley Cup Finals in the same year, while true, is not notable for inclusion in my opinion. —Chris! _ct 03:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there are references for each of the NBA Finals and Stanley Cup events, there are no references that speak specifically of the subject. The entire article is therefore based on WP:OR and WP:SYN. — X96lee15 (talk) 03:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While being true, it really isn't that random if you think about it, being that NHL and NBA both hold their finals at the same time, so an arena would have to work double time to get it to work out. However, I agree with the nominator in the fact that it is indiscriminate and I would even add WP:SALAT to it for being to narrow of a topic. Tavix | Talk 04:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is non-notable trivia at best. I don't see the need to even mention this in any article as it would be deleted as trviai. TJ Spyke 04:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nice bit of work by SNIyer12 but we don't need to become a record of poor coordination by sports officials. ~ Amory (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep I can see a list like this being useful to someone doing research into the indoor arena business, although the broadcaster details are probably excessive. And I'd much prefer a single article like this to multiple articles like Bulls–Blackhawks Finals series of 1992 ‎and Knicks–Rangers Finals series of 1994. Zagalejo^^^ 18:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exported to Wikinfo / Comment I agree that the broadcasters and ratings, while interesting, are excessive and have been removed. Personally, I think it's interesting that venues host two championships at the same time, but can see where others may not. SigKauffman (talk) 20:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OR by synthesis. Reso lute 23:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what we need is a ref that talks about the significance of an arena hosting both in the same year. At the moment someone who doesn't know they take place around the same time, making the job of hosting both very hactic, will think "so what?". 80.6.13.211 (talk) 08:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with Zagalejo. I think we should have single articles like those mentioned above. SNIyer12 (talk), 01:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you misunderstood what I said. I prefer a single article about all the concurrent NBA/NHL series to multiple articles about each year's events. Zagalejo^^^ 01:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Melisschif

Not a notable tag team on its own, as they haven't won any notable championships or have and significant third party coverage about the team. All the information is already covered in the articles of the individual members. Nikki♥311 03:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This one is extremely hard to even think about. I feel the team is very notable. Dear God their feud is known throughout the wrestling world. Though the article is in such a terriable place at the moment. Against my better judgment I'm going to have to vote Keep. I see potential in this article. With work, it could be something. Though not owning any Shimmer DVDs and just watching what I find, the name seems fan made. I could easily find a photo of the team though. I see notability.--WillC 13:31, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Their feud has nothing do with them as a "team", though, as they obviously weren't teaming at the time. That's why I think the information is better off in their individual articles. Nikki♥311 17:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah their feud has nothing to do with the teams notability. But the team has become known because of the feud. See because their feud is known, once they began teaming, they were known as a tag team. It has helped establish them a bit.--WillC 05:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it has questionable Notability now it can always be recreated when its notable. Afkatk (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Afkatk TaintedZebra (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Experience (Wrestling)

Not a notable tag team, as they haven't won any notable championships or have any significant third party coverage of their own. The relevant information is already contained within the articles of the individual members (or could be merged there). I tried redirecting the article, but it was undone. Nikki♥311 03:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 03:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:39, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom.--WillC 13:34, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Afkatk (talk) 19:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nom says it all TaintedZebra (talk) 02:28, 15 June 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 All Hour Cymbals. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wait For The Summer

No assertion of notability for the single. Fails WP:MUSIC as a single. Tyrenon (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 11:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to All Hour Cymbals, the album in which it appears StarM 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 03:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. JJL (talk) 13:13, 8 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:10, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Guiness punch

Non-notable, unencyclopaedic, poorly written Intelligentsium 02:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not the Mr. Boston book. - 2 ... says you, says me 03:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination; non-notable drink --mhking (talk) 03:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTHOW. Accurizer (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pile on WP:SNOWy vote... Tavix | Talk 04:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a recipe book for aspiring bartenders. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN and (very) poorly written G~~ain~~Line ♠ _♥ 11:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow! - 2 ... says you, says me 18:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

J2SFlow

Vanity page Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree that it's not notable. Johnuniq (talk) 11:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Some remaining copyvios have been removed, no stance on on-going deletion discussion. MLauba (talk) 12:43, 12 June 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lodge Cottrell Ltd

Vanity page. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 02:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's improved enough to call it a keep now, though still has serious issues that can be solved through editing. Gigs (talk) 18:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC) Delete or fundamentally rewrite from scratch. I believe the company is notable, however, the current article is pure corporate vanity/advertising, and should not remain. If the article were recreated as an encyclopedia article, then I would vote keep. Gigs (talk) 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have removed the promotional content from the article - there's still plenty left, but it needs sourcing. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. ~~Article needs references other than company's web site.~~ Some text copypasted from web site. Need to sort out copyright permissions? Esowteric (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If Suggest some text is reworded or permission obtained from company or license/release into public domain shown on web site. Failing that, prune? Esowteric (talk) 18:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of reliable sources found by Google Books and Google News searches. I've added a couple to the article, but that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't see how this can be a "vanity page" when the people named died in 1940 and 1948 respectively. If there's copyright-violating content we can cut this back to a stub, but it certainly doesn't merit deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Corporate vanity is still vanity. We do speedy delete it often. Gigs (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

and notability is still notability, whatever we may suspect the motives of article creators to be. We keep and edit articles on notable subjects rather than delete them. I don't think "vanity" is a helpful word to use in a discussion about whether we should have an article on a subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not if someone G11's it first. Dozens of articles like this are speedy deleted every day. Anyway if you didn't notice, I was the one to nominate this for rescue, even though I voted delete, because of basically the reasons you are outlining here. Gigs (talk) 19:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice, and it was a good tagging, thank you, but why !vote delete when an article can be fixed in a few minutes simply by removing some of the content? The idea of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia about notable subjects, not to punish supposed spammers. My main issue here is the word "vanity", which, whenever I see it used in a deletion discussion, seems to be a breach of our policy on the assumption of good faith. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ross Burki

Subject is non-notable soccer player; no professional experience; no notable amateur achievements; fails WP:N and WP:ATHLETE JonBroxton (talk) 01:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; non-notable youth player. Recreate when/if he becomes notable. Giant Snowman 11:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability for sportspeople at WP:ATH as he has never played in a fully-professional league/competition. Also fails general notability at WP:N. --Jimbo^[online] 12:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable youth football player. --Carioca (talk) 17:18, 11 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northern Storm F.C.

This article about an amateur football club in Australia was, according to the club's own website, "created to help generate exposure for the club" (see: [76]). The article was created by User:NorthernStormFootballClub who has contested a prod deletion on the article. Aside from the blatant promotional purpose, the club does not appear to meet WP:GROUP or WP:ATHLETE: the article contains only a single independent reference, and it's to the local newspaper for the small city where the club is from. A Google News search for "Northern Storm Football Club" doesn't produce any hits and a general Google search doesn't produce any reliable sources either (I'd post links to the search results, but for some reason they're timing out!) - the closest thing to an additional RS is this which is from another local newspaper and is blatantly promotional (note the contact details for the club at the bottom of the article, listing and praise of sponsors, lack of a byline, etc). Nick-D (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable team, fails WP:GROUP and, as individuals, WP:ATHLETE. WWGB (talk) 02:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This football club is notable as it can be found on a number of websites including North Coast Football, The Coffs Coast Advocate, Northern New South Wales Football, Coffs Coast Travel and Tourism, Coffs Harbour City Council, Coffs Coast Independent, OurPatch (under the 'Sporting Groups Directory').

http://www.coffscoast.com.au/midac/reception.pl?Source=Coffs+Coast+Travel+and+Tourism&Code=iINcc261&Template=coffs&st=&returnURL=&IN=INcc&dm=1&tw=&wide=

http://www.finda.com.au/story/2009/05/12/the-storm-blow-past-disappointing-orara/

http://www.finda.com.au/story/2009/05/18/experience-the-key-for-urunga-raiders/

http://www.coffscoastadvocate.com.au/search-results/?page=searchresults&cx=005684713114513801790%3Avir3dk8sc7u&cof=FORID%3A11&ie=UTF-8&q=Northern+Storm&sa=#1107

http://www.northcoastfootball.com.au/clubs.html#storm

Gas Panic42 (talk) 04:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that User:Gas Panic42 is the same editor as User:NorthernStormFootballClub (User talk:NorthernStormFootballClub redirects to User talk:Gas Panic42) Nick-D (talk) 04:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So I changed my username (on 2 June, by the way, 6 days ago now). Does this make any difference to the state of the article? Gas Panic42 (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all: I was just highlighting that you're the editor who started the article. I note that you were editing the article as User:NorthernStormFootballClub earlier today. Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the topic of the links posted above, the first is a directory listing, four are from the local newspaper and are routine match reports or promotional and lack bylines (the fourth link in the list isn't even about this team) and the last one is the website of the amateur football league the club plays in. I personally don't think that the news stories are the kind of coverage needed to meet WP:ORG as they're trivial in nature and aren't clearly from a 'reliable, independent secondary source' given that they appear to have been written by people associated with the team judging from their tone (most lack bylines, which doesn't help establish reliability). As the article was expressly created to promote the club, strong sourcing is needed to demonstrate notability. Nick-D (talk) 05:30, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The above listed websites are written by people who are not associated with the club in any way (even though you may believe they 'appear' to be judging from their 'tone'). They are written by reliable sources such as newspapers (The Coffs Coast Advocate has a circulation of well over 30,000 before anyone attempts to say that it is 'not notable') and football governing bodies (North Coast Football, Northern New South Wales Football). Gas Panic42 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As the club is not a fully professional club participating in a top-flight competition, the article subject does not meet the notability criteria for football/soccer teams set out in WP Football Notability. Therefore must meet the broader Wikipedia notability guidelines. Some sources are available, but as far as I can tell none can be considered as reliable third party sources. Perhaps the person who created this article could consider approaching the club and working on their website, if they do not already do so. Also, I feel it should be pointed out that operating multiple accounts is usually frowned upon, although there are some circumstances in which it is considered okay so caution is advised. — AustralianRupert (talk) 06:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not operate 'multiple accounts', my username was originally NorthernStormFootballClub but I was informed that this was an inappropriate username, so I changed it to 'Gas_Panic42'. No multiple accounts here. Also, I am the club's website administrator - is there anything that I should do in order for the club to be considered 'notable'? (even though it already is the second largest football club in the Northern New South Wales Football region with over 500 registered members). Gas Panic42 (talk) 07:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If you don't operate multiple accounts, then why are you still still using the NorthernStormFootballClub one? Please note that you should not edit articles on topics which you have a conflict of interest with, and especially not to promote the subject of the article as you have done here - the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I am no longer using my NorthernStormFootballClub account. Please point out any sections of the article that have a promotional tone and I will fix these right away. Gas Panic42 (talk) 11:52, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Very light-weight refs; fails WP:N. Johnuniq (talk) 11:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' per nom; non-notable team. Giant Snowman 13:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable. Orderinchaos 03:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This club is notable, and a more-than-adequate amount of sources has been provided to prove this. The club has existed for over 15 years and established itself as 'notable' due to its participation in important Australian club competitions such as the HBF Champion of Champions with success. Gas Panic42 (talk) 09:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How does its participation in a non-notable competition make it notable? And the "sources" are the local rag and the local council - much like every other local team of any size or level in Australia apart from top-flight competitions. Orderinchaos 20:09, 11 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Van De Velde

"Bruce Edward Van De Velde" gets zero hits on google, other than this article. Deputy director of athletics at a public university, not notable as far as I can tell. Gigs (talk) 01:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Bruce has a job, good for him. Even the article says he is best known for hiring a basketball coach. That alone should scream non-notable. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of notability. Fails WP:BIO. Johnuniq (talk) 11:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 23:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not exactly zero hits on google - but news search only turns up a handful of articles in which he is quoted. Agreed not notable. Livitup (talk) 17:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Terrell Sass

Procedual nom. Prodded by COMPFUNK2, and de-prodded by an anon editor. Prod reason was: "Non-notable music producer (don't let the allmusic.com entry fool you; he's only listed once as a writer on someone's album)." Fails WP:MUSIC, and there are little reliable sources out there. No hits on Google news: [77] Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

**Actually, the anonymous editor that removed the tag appears to be User:Percus5705, the same user that created the article. WP:SPI, here I come! THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 01:26, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MUSIC. 2help (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charge Carrier Extraction by Linearly Increasing Voltage

This was proded with the rationale that it returned few Google hits, which is not surprising since it is a highly specialized scientific term. There is a fair bit of coverage on GScholar [78] which means at minimum it isn't just a concept one person came up with. Not being knowledgeable in the subject, I can't tell if it is sufficiently notable for an entry or not so I am sending it here with no opinion personally. ThaddeusB (talk) 00:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- ThaddeusB (talk) 01:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too specific a sub-term, and described in the article as 'novel'. If someone creates a Charge Carrier Extraction article, this material could go there. JJL (talk) 01:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, probable original research. JIP | Talk 05:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wyatt Earp effect

Nonnotable neologism. I believe this "effect" is not sufficiently notable for Wikipedia. Considering some of the comments on the talk page, it may also be merely an OR essay that violates WP:COI. Evb-wiki (talk) 00:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable neologism. Top Google hit is...guess what?...Wikipedia article. Only one other relevant hit. LovesMacs (talk) 00:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I looked more on Google and found more hits but I still think this is not yet notable enough. Loves Macs (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. However, I would note that lots of legitimate encyclopedic topics have their Wikipedia article as their first Google hit. The problem is that this topic has hardly any Google hits outside Wikipedia and its mirrors. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds like something someone made up for a psych 202 paper. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contributor deletes it himself: He tried to do his best, although he agrees that "Notability in the wiki/eng" sense is not met. However, this is not his reason for withdrawal, because this notability notion will most probably have to be revised by wiki/eng herself before a larger language takes over. And we know, such a language does exist. No, the true reason for withdrawal is that the "Wyatt Earp Effekt" seems perfectly understood or can be learned in the next psych 303-course. Don't be sad, Wyatt Earp, if "your" effect will bear one day another name. Somebody will always remember, that you were, as far as I know, the first who lent his name, and your name was an excellent choice.81.244.234.197 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable enough, and the only reference isn't even in the language of this wiki. Jagun^Talk_Contribs 19:41, 9 June 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. Jamie^☆S93 00:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Furious Angels (community)

Fails WP Notability guidelines. Not covered in reliable third party sources. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 00:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. nonnotable group, not covered in reliable sources. --Evb-wiki (talk) 02:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:47, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 9 June 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metallica demos

Absolutely no sources, none found, tagged for notability since March. DEMOS ARE NOT INHERENTLY NOTABLE EVEN IF BY A NOTABLE ACT. There's nothing valuable worth merging. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 20:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could see one being notable if it became a bootleg hit of some kind, or got an official release at some point, but I tend to agree with Hammer here.Tyrenon (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of information there, somebody has put a lot of work in. Deletion doesn't make sense, the authors of the page should be encourage to add citations and merge the information about the demos into the articles for the albums that followed the demos. -- Horkana (talk) 22:21, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citations from what? You can't cite if there aren't any sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If people have heard enough about these demos to write an article about them then there is a good chance citations exist in music magazines where people make careers out of writing about this kind of musical minutae. -- Horkana (talk) 02:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Someone seems to have added sources, albeit weak ones. Still not sure this is notable, though. If this were an article about a particular demo it definitely would not be. But, even if the individual demos themselves are not notable, an article about the Metallica demos in general may be. Rlendog (talk) 18:13, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although the individual demos are most likely not notable, I am inclined to believe that, considered collectively, the demos of such a major group are notable. There are plenty of genre-specific sources to verify the accuracy of the information and I'm sure many histories of the band mention that talk about their demos in some depth. The article could be expanded to talk about how the demos have played a role in shaping the band's history, but even without such expansion it can stand as a sub-article of Metallica discography --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Metallica discography. I'm convinced by TPH's argument that demos are not notable even if by a notable act; but notability deals with whether something should have a separate article. It does not deal with whether the content should be WP:PRESERVEd, and indeed in this case it should. Further, "Metallica demos" is a very, very plausible search term and I am strongly of the opinion that plausible search terms should not be redlinks on Wikipedia.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:22, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as above. Eusebeus (talk) 13:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: FYI, delete and redirect isn't an option. If the content is merged, the redirect must be preserved for proper attribution as required by the GFDL. --ThaddeusB (talk) 14:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isabela chiriboga

While there is an assertion of notability, I'm not quite sure that this article makes the cut. It might just be my deletionist nature (and all this article needs is a cleanup), but I think the fact that she was a runner-up in a beauty pageant doesn't quite cut it for WP:N Tyrenon (talk) 20:24, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, for now at least I am leaning towards a weak keep, maybe give it some time? There are numerous mentions of beauty peagents and who knows how she may score on the upcoming one that is mentioned... I bet there are some sources out there as well.

Look at it this way, our own Miss CA Carrie Prejean has an article. She didn't win. Was it her question answering that created news sources? In my humble opinion, to simply throw this out would be a little biased towards other countries beauty peagents compared to ours... Please correct me if I am wrong. Turqoise127 (talk) 22:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. She may be a national delegate to Miss International, but is that a sign of notability? I haven't yet seen any evidence that the Miss International pageant is broadcast on television anywhere. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nn per BIO. Eusebeus (talk) 13:05, 9 June 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 Marasmusine (talk) 10:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games released only in Japan

Listcruft, and likely quite hard to keep accurate in any way. Tyrenon (talk) 20:12, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categorize and delete. ZabMilenko 05:32, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please remove the "if you came here" tag. Such "warnings" are appropriate when a discussion has attracted numerous participants. They are not intended to be used preemptively or as a deterrent to comment. Mandsford (talk) 12:49, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is essentially a list of unsourced names of games. While the topic has the potential to be interesting (such as if there is a reason that a game has not been released elsewhere), this article is not going in that direction. And again, please remove that dumb tag. Mandsford (talk) 12:55, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, unsourced and unmaintainable list. JIP | Talk 05:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as listcruft. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This would quickly turn into List of video games released only in Japan (A-Aardvark). It's going to run in the multiple thousands. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. —Ost (talk) 14:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has potential as a subject, but what's here at the moment is nothing more than original research. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 14:31, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In it's current form with no refs. The basic idea sounds ok though. 80.6.13.211 (talk) 08:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although nominally this list is a limited set, that set is simply waaaaaay too broad to be maintainable or, really, useful. If you limit it to games released for just a single console, it'd still be a bitch and a half to maintain, but if the video game project was willing to commit to compiling one of those, I'd applaud their efforts. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:15, 10 June 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. Flowerparty^☀ 00:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AOL Sessions (Lady Gaga EP)

Sources are Last.fm, a blog and a primary source. No other good sources found, as this appears to be a digital-only release. Albums by notable artists aren't inherently notable. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 16:26, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:52, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lack of coverage from independent reliable sources. Failed to chart, does not meet the inclusion criteria. — Σ xplicit 02:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Per the inclusion criteria: "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia." But I am not sure how that applies to EPs. Rlendog (talk) 18:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May doesn't mean the same as will. Plenty of EPs by notable artists get deleted for lack of individual notability. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:Fails notability. I primarily edit the Lady Gaga articles and can say convincingly that this one should be deleted for failing WP:NOTABILITY. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 09:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Does not actually exist. Complete fancruft and no reliable sources backing the article up, therefore it lacks notability! The cover is from another Lady Gaga remixes release edited by a fan replacing text with "The AOL Sessions" • вяαdcяo chat 09:48, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I wish people would stop saying it doesn't exist - a quick search on Google will show you quite clearly it does. Regardless, the sources are verified and reliable and the EP is notable, in my opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikkuy (talk • contribs) 09:47, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Existence ≠ Notability. Without proper sources, this would not meet inclusion guidelines, even though Lady Gaga is a very popular artist. Sebwite (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep artist is notable and existence is verified; I don't see the problem here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up If this cover is a manipulation - and it may well be - and if there is no information on a release other than on AOL's site, then it should be deleted. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:03, 15 June 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. Cirt (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun little movies

"Mobisode" (mobile phone film) which claims to have won a prite - however the notability of the film and of the company of the same name are questionable Passportguy (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Now that the article has been significantly re-written and improved and focuses more on the company than the film. Passportguy (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What are the criteria for notability? If MTV and ITVN competed for the award in 2008, and if the award was held in Barcelona Spain, and if there is an industry centered around Mobile entertainment, is that notable? (http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE51I2B820090219, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm) Thesupersfox (talk) 19:51, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox[reply]

Per WP:NOTE, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." If you have reliable, independent sources, it would be a good idea to add them to the article. Please feel free to ask me on my talk page if you have any more questions. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the above may have been a bit combative. Apologies, but the Mobile Entertainment Field seems to be getting shafted. Here is Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article/reutersEdge/idUSTRE51I2B820090219 Here is BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm Here is BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7908414.stm Here is CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/tech/2009/02/20/finighan.spain.intv.spacey.cnn Here is LA Times on FLM: http://articles.latimes.com/2005/may/07/entertainment/et-mobiletv7?pg=3 Forbes is here: http://www.columbia.edu/cu/news/clips/2005/05/24/ComingSoonFORBES.pdf Those are just a few of the names that think FUn Little Movies is notable. Thesupersfox (talk) 20:15, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox—Preceding unsigned comment added by Thesupersfox (talk • contribs) 20:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good start, but it should be noted that not all of those articles mention Fun Little Movies. I do agree that there should probably be some sort of Wikipedia entry covering mobile entertainment and MoFilm, though. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Note that I moved the page to Fun Little Movies, because the company uses capital letters on all words. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for all your help. Yes, not all of those mention fun little movies, some refer to the Mofilm award, and its notability, since that had also been contestedThesupersfox (talk) 20:23, 3 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox.Thesupersfox (talk) 23:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)thesupersfox[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep it seems we do have a new media format to figure out how to work with, & so it is possible that the award is significant. We need a further discussion it it. Am I correct it was the first time it has been awarded? that tends to make things difficult to evaluate.DGG (talk) 18:51, 4 June 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) 00:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Generally, a prize needs to at least bear mention in some sort of reliable source when it's awarded. A subject like mobisodes is going to be covered heavily on the internet, but I found little to nothing in Google News or elsewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by User:Thesupersfox. "Fun Little Movies" as a company is indeed getting the coverage required by WP:GNG. See Google News "Fun Little Movies". And to AMIB, and with respects, my own search found the term "mobisode" indeed finding greater and greater use in contemporary media. See Google News "mobisode". This little stub has a great future if allowed to grow based upon the many available sources. WP:CLEANUP anyone? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can Google search "student film" and get many millions of entries, but it doesn't mean a particular student film is notable. The point about mobisodes is that it's not the sort of subject that is going to see exclusive print coverage, so a lack of online coverage can be safely taken as a lack of any coverage, barring specific evidence otherwise. As for the linked sites, this and this and this make no mention of Fun Little Movies, and this makes only brief mention. It's odd that you cite sources that don't even mention this series as reliable sources; are you sure you read them? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 23:43, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
With respects, this article is not about student films. It is about a specific company. And no, I am not required by guideline to now list every source found in that search and explain how it shows notability for the subject of the article. Sad that the current article needs work, but since Wikipedia does not expect to be perfect, that's a reason to fix an article through cleanup, not a reason for deletion. And again, the article is not about "the series", its about "the company". Thank you, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 01:37, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nor is it about mobisodes; it's about a specific mobisode series, so broadly drawn Google searches that catch no relevant pages don't help. Where are the sources that comment on this subject? It is on you to justify claims that the subject is notable and verifiable, not vice versa. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, it is not about "mobisodes". I was responding to your initial statement "A subject like mobisodes is going to be covered heavily on the internet, but I found little to nothing in Google News or elsewhere". I found it in g-news when you said you found litle. But arguing that point is not helpful to a discussion about a company, since the article is specifically not about a mobisodes series.... the article is about a comapny.

The entire content of the current stub is "Fun Little Movies is a short film production and distribution company based in Burbank, California. Their recent production Turbo Dates won 2009 Mofilm Grand Prize." This makes it an article about a company, with an assertion of a product wining an award. Their product line itself may be part of a later subsection when the article is kept and expanded.

The "burden" of the company meeting the notability guideline is seen by any who look at the readily available G-news sources ABOUT the company. Burden is an instruction for article creation and maintainace, and not a demand for editors to prove that the sources available actually exist.

And of course WP:BURDEN is set in place to encourage article improvement, not deletion, by its stating "If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, consider tagging a sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, a section with {{unreferencedsection}}, or the article with {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}. Alternatively, you may leave a note on the talk page requesting a source, or you may move the material to the talk page.". Thank you. And now back to an improvable stub article about a company... Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 03:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You keep linking that Google search. I was wondering when you'd point out something in it that wasn't a press release. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:25, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Not my job to do it for you. I'm busy actually improving the article instead of trying to argue why it should go. Thank you though for your input. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:23, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Keep this article, I'm sure there are sources. Somewhere. All those editors who said they looked at the broadly drawn Google searches I posted and found nothing of use? They missed something. Obviously." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In my repeated offering of the Google News search, I have opened the door and hoped that someone might actually peek to see that there are indeed flowers among the weeds. I am not however going to pick them and place them in your lap. The flowers I am picking, I am putting to use elsewhere. Thank you for your constructive efforts to build an encyclopedia. For myself anyway, its far easier me me to fix the pipe than complain about having wet feet. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 06:10, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll be over here cleaning up advertising, and contenting myself that the most efficient plumbing system uses the smallest amount of pipe possible. (But in the meantime it's cool if I describe your claim that sources exist as unsupported by evidence, ya?) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand that philosophy of some that the paperless Wikipedia is too big... and perhaps all of Wikipedia will one day be relegated to a one line redirect. "Wikipedia: See Encyclopedia Britanica". In the meanwhile though, I will content myself to fixing the pipes that are repairable, rather than tearing them out so as to have as few as possible. And as for my "claim", anyone who actually looks at the G-news sources will see the claim is not unsupported nor unsupportable. Enjoyable discourse. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We can talk about philosophy, because I don't quite think you fully understand where I'm coming from in a larger scheme (because of my omissions more than anything else) but in the meantime there's this advertise-y article lacking any sort of proper establishment of notability, and while I realize you're opposed to that, we do delete non-notable articles here at AFD. Did you have any guidance for what to look for beyond that Google search? I looked for this series with the award name and got only press releases and faff, dug through that search and found lots of press releases and blogs referencing those press releases and some unrelated junk, and did some other searching and got bupkiss. I've put in my good-faith effort, and come up with nawt. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:04, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any plumber will tell you that the smaller the pipe, the more restricted the flow and the eassier it is to get stoppages in a system intended for high volume. That anolgy applied to Wikipedia can translate to a lessened flow of information and more disruption as editors bicker over how their plan for the "pipes" and the "flow" is better than somone else's.

If one looks out a dooor expecting to find weeds, that's all one will sometimes allow oneself to see. If one steps out and walks the garden looking for the flowers, one can then ignore the weeds.

You searched for a series and an award. I searched for the "flowers" of a company (the article topic) and its founder. Digging through several hundred articles going back to 2004, I gathered a rather nice bouquet.

We are different editors and have different search practices. And so while involved in this discussion with you here, I think my own time was also spent in a rather productive manner. Thank you for sharing your philosophy. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent. I didn't have any problem finding sourcing in that search - "Still in its infancy, cell phone cinema preps for a close-up." Chicago Tribune (via Knight-Ridder/Tribune News Service) and noted that it's already been added to the article along with many other sources. MichaelQSchmidt, IMHO, is developing a stellar track record of overhauling articles and should be commended whereas this thread seems rather snarky against them. Perhaps the point that energy would be better used improving articles is good advice and they seem to be setting an example of how to do so. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article now has references to plenty of notable media sources, meeting all requirements for its existence. Dream Focus 11:49, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep plenty of sources. Granite thump (talk) 18:35, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, excellent work MichaelQSchmidt, sourcing and notability piled on and done so with rather finessed writing. -- Banjeboi 22:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am gratified that the nom withdrew his nomination. It feels good to help actually build an encyclopedia.. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snowball Keep per excellent work of MichaelQSchmidt. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 12 June 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. Jamie^☆S93 23:57, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plank band

Non-notable band Passportguy (talk) 20:02, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 23:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Klat" 11:10, 2 June 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) 00:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The nominator hit it on the head. Pastor Theo (talk) 04:41, 8 June 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 List of Power Rangers episodes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Fate of Lightspeed

Fails WP:N as a non-notable television episode. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Power Rangers episodes. I think it could deserve an article, but not in its current state. TJ Spyke 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 8 June 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 List of Power Rangers episodes. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green No More

Non-notable Power Rangers episode. SchuminWeb (Talk) 16:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Power Rangers episodes. I think it could deserve an article, but not in its current state. TJ Spyke 16:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 16:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 8 June 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 Alamo Bowl. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alamo Bowl broadcasters

A user created this article as a sub to Alamo Bowl. I merged them together leaving a message at Talk:Alamo Bowl, and he undid without any explanation. Since the main article is 13kb long and this stub list is only 4kb long, the main article, which is mostly lists and tables, is in no way so long as to require a split per WP:LENGTH. There is absolutely no reason why this stub list cannot be merged into the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user actually never split the article, the user started a new artcle, go back to the history and look it up.--Levineps (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're right; maybe not on this article, but for the others you did. I WP:MERGED the two together because there is no reason for them to be separate. You simply undid me without any explanation. That's also slightly deceiving and confusing to be speaking in third person there. It was Levineps who made the article. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You make way too many assumptions! You need to read the history before assuming that an article was split. And also, you need to use talk page before make a significant change to an article.--Levineps (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I'm wrong there, but you have yet to explain why the two can't be merged. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:39, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and Merge to Alamo Bowl.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 17:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tsukkomi Shime

This feels like trivia to me. I know some moves are notable, but this particular move has no assertion of notability, no sourcing, etc. For all I know, it's a hoax, but I'm not confident enough of that to CSD it. Tyrenon (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable choke hold CTJF83Talk 22:11, 1 June 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) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, can not find any reliable sources that discuss the move at all. Found some sources that mention it, but always in a list with other moves, no discussion of it. Not notable A new name 2008 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, may be mispelt. --Klein zach 04:58, 9 June 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. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Kamen

Full of peacock terms, no real notability asserted, no non-trivial coverage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 21:06, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - She won the People's Choice Podcast Award. Her profile has appeared in a book [79] and magazine [80]. These are enough to establish notability. –Megaboz (talk) 22:25, 5 June 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) 00:00, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, notability is established in the article itself and with the additional information presented above. The article needs to be cleaned up but not deleted. A new name 2008 (talk) 00:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to think about it, but I'm not convinced that the Peoples Choice in Podcasting award is all that notable either. Niteshift36 (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST. I checked the refs – they do not establish notability. I gather that the 2005 award was one category of a "people's choice podcast award" which does not sound sufficiently reliable (was it 'one person one vote'?). Johnuniq (talk) 05:06, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnuniq. The closing admin should evaluate the sources against the standard at WP:ARTIST. Eusebeus (talk) 12:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These independent and reliable sources mention her Seattle Times, Newsweek, though I'm not sure I'd say they discuss her in detail. She's also quoted in this NY Post article, which refers to her as a "fitness expert". I'm on the fence. Yilloslime ^T_C 16:53, 13 June 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 \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Avy Lee Roth

Non-notable porn actress. See WP:PORNBIO. None of the sources referenced in the article are reliable (all blog or vendor sites) and no substantive coverage of her exists in reliable sources. Her claim that she is the daughter of David Lee Roth can not be verified by reliable sources either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: insufficient sources. Every reference given is from unreliable sources. Alexius08 (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Poor sources, contentious claims with insufficient evidence. Just, no. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 07:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ARTIST and all above. Johnuniq (talk) 04:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't see any sign that she passes general WP:BIO or specific WP:PORNBIO notability criteria. --Stormie (talk) 03:19, 14 June 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.

^ Insert footnote text here

[1] Insert footnote text here

[1]