Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 12 March 14 March >

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 speedy deleted, CSD A7 will do. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canopy Vent boys

[edit]
Canopy Vent boys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Ben Harkness (talk) 23:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Speedy Delete This article doesn't need an AfD. FlyingToaster 23:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin YS Chun

[edit]
Kelvin YS Chun (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested. Autobiography with no claims of notability to encyclopedia standard. Very likely to be substantially the same as articles "Kelvin Chun" and Kelvin Chun by same editor which were both speedily deleted Porturology (talk) 22:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Past attempts did not include references. This attempt included more references.

Changes were made to follow similar formatting of another notable teacher's website Ron Clark (teacher). (----)

Changes were made to follow similar formatting of another notable magician's website Lee Asher. (----)

Changes were made to follow similar formatting of another notable magician's website Sylvester the Jester. (----) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kelvinyschun (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the references and you will find majority are primary independent established sources such as: Education World, Disney, George Lucas Foundation, USA Today and many more. (----)

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

The result was keep. BJTalk 22:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jones in the Fast Lane

[edit]
Jones in the Fast Lane (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several reasons for deletion:

Notability

Article gives no indication why this particular game may be notable. Video games are not automatically notable. No reliable sources are given in the article, and internet searches using Google failed to find any. Discussion with one of the major contributors to the article implies he is not aware of any (see Talk:Jones in the Fast Lane). Notability is not established and appears unlikely to be established. (the recently added reference claims to be published by "Stamford University", and indeed the link is deeply nested in a University address; it appears rather that this is a self-published document in a user area of the Stamford website; it is listed on this page, titled "Student essays": [1].

Content

Current content, with the exception of that citing the Stamford reference, appears to be limited to a game guide; this is excluded as encyclopedic content by the policy WP:NOT, specifically WP:GAMEGUIDE. (content not covered by this guideline now exists --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)) Rogerb67 (talk) 22:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, wikipedia seems to have no problem listing all other sorts of old games that are too old to have any online third party references aside from gaming sites. This is a game that was released almost two decades ago by Sierra, and a google search of jones in the fast lane, http://www.google.com.au/search?q="jones+in+the+fast+lane" , as a phrase, reveals over 15,000 results. Timeshift (talk) 03:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're talking about this article, not about others. Stay on point. MuZemike 18:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a commercial game released by a major company. It well post-dates large-scale video game journalism but predates wide-scale Internet use, so it's very likely that this article is sourceable and a Google search is definitely not representative.
    Article content is an editing issue and does not require the use of special tools such as deletion. --Kizor 20:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the first point, notability is not inherited (WP:ITSA); to the second, if that is the case, go ahead and find and cite some; otherwise this is really just personal opinion. To the third, I agree that after some additions there is now a separate stub article to consider.--Rogerb67 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup – the game guide material could go, but otherwise there is sufficient notability established in that deletion is not necessary. MuZemike 22:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This game was very popular in its heyday which happened before the Internet age, but it was well covered in the offline game magazines of that time. Using the Internet age standards to judge this game is very unfair in my opinion. Of course I do not know Wikipedia's criteria for deleting articles and I do not wish to bother to know. My question is just, is Wikipedia so hard up on hard disk space that this article needs to be deleted? Kiwi8 (talk) 10:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was well-covered in such magazines, citing a few shouldn't be hard. (I wasn't judging it by the internet age; I was noting I had made an effort to find references before nominating.) --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are nuts for asking me to find for you game magazines that I had 18 years ago, which I had since thrown them away. You are just being bureaucratic here. Kiwi8 (talk) 04:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • And you are asking the Wikipedia community to trust your assertion of your memory of 18-year-old events, without evidence, which is clearly contrary to WP:Verifiability (see quotes above) and WP:notability#Notability requires objective evidence.--Rogerb67 (talk) 14:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • See, u are already being bureaucratic for using the Internet age standards to judge the notability of the game. And as to the comments u made on my talk page about being civil and in good faith, I am already restraining myself, otherwise vulgarities would have been uttered at your cold bureaucracy. Anyway, any gameplay information about the article can be easily gained from a playthrough of the game which I still occasionally play. Kiwi8 (talk) 01:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned about some of the arguments put forward, which appear to imply that it is the nominator's responsibility to demonstrate non-notability. Apart from the obvious difficulties in demonstrating conclusively that references do not exist, the policy page WP:Verifiability clearly states "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material" (emphasis from original). If the references that demonstrate notability are harder to find because they were published before widespread use of the Internet, that's fine, but it's still the responsibility of those editors who wish to retain the article to demonstrate that such references do exist, with more than just vague assertions. Having said that, I accept that the subject may be notable – perhaps even well-known in North America for example – and that it was just a poor article when nominated. Improvements have been made already, and that in itself is a positive outcome. In my opinion, an additional reference to "significant coverage in a reliable source" (I don't think a student essay can reasonably be counted as such) would be sufficient to fully establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An article isn't removed just because it requires improvements or lacks certain topics and concentrates on others. I don't know why you have an axe to grind, but it seems you're being outnumbered here. Timeshift (talk) 13:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the meaning of my comments above; when I nominated the article, it had no assertion of notability and no reliable sources, making it an apparent candidate for deletion after my own searches turned up empty. That is what I meant when I called it a "poor article". Poor articles of encyclopaedic subjects should indeed be kept if they are demonstrated to be notable (possibly with BLP exceptions that don't apply here); articles of any standard that are of non-notable or non-encyclopaedic subjects should not. Nominating such an article for AfD, and arguing your case once there, is not an "axe to grind", and deletion debates are decided by strength of argument, not numbers. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: article is in an WP:IMPERFECT state, and that's not a reason for deletion. We'd only delete it if we found that no amount of improvement would allow it to meet guidelines. This is a game published by Sierra, a very important publisher in the game industry. There's no doubt in my mind that this article could even reach featured article status with a lot of work. Randomran (talk) 15:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per my response to User:Kizor above, I'm no longer asserting deletion because of WP:GAMEGUIDE; content that is clearly not covered by this policy now exists (I've struck this out for clarity). When nominated, this article had no reliable references; it appears to have one now, but it's not clear if it amounts to "significant coverage", and multiple such references are almost always required needed to establish notability. The game may be published by Sierra, but as I noted above, notability is not inherited. If you believe this is featured article material, let us in on a couple of the references that would support that article, and establish notability. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now lets all be honest about this. trying to get scholarly-grade citations for a 1991 computer game is absurd. don't set the bar improbably high just to prune wikipedia of content. as far games go, this is relatively notable, as a google search, various posters here and some links show. 85.64.221.163 (talk) 21:07, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not looking for that; a couple of in-depth articles in reliable magazines or a sizeable chapter of a book with a major publisher for example would be fine. If the game doesn't have that kind of coverage, "Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:V). In my opinion, a single article containing unknown coverage, a student essay, an almost empty game FAQ and a link to a flash version of the game do not amount to significant coverage in reliable sources. I will be just as happy, if not more so, if after this nomination the article has encyclopedic content and sufficient references to fully establish notability, as if it is deleted. --Rogerb67 (talk) 23:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - My personal opinion is the game was a pioneer for the "electronic boardgame" style, one of the first to introduce the concept of an electronic cash economy and a trailblazer in graphics and intuitive gameplay. Alas, the current references don't yet conclusively verify these points. That's not surprising given the age of the game, and I suspect a thorough examination of video-game texts or research papers would uncover more and better sources. Entire chapters or in-depth articles aren't needed - just a few references noting Jones' contribution to what came after. I don't have a library of video-game texts and wouldn't know where to look, but hopefully someone better versed in the subject area will come forward during the AfD. In the absence of this I'd say weak delete - the sources (even my Stanford one) don't quite meet the notability threshold. One of those regrettable cases where the subject is notable in real life but we may be unable to include it because sources can't readily be found. Euryalus (talk) 23:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • 'Comment - the various minor sources uncovered during this AfD have gone some way to establishing notability, so I've amended my comment above. More credible third party sources would still be worth finding, the article only barely makes it as is, and is at risk of further AfD's if nothing is added. An AfD is sometimes the only thing that gets people to research a topic - let's hope that enthusiasm continues. Euryalus (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A release by Sierra should be sufficient to establish notability.--Sloane (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please stop this quest to delete this article? - hear hear!! Timeshift (talk) 19:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note – there is also another print source providing some coverage of the game [2] in COMPUTE! magazine. MuZemike 20:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great, have added to the article. Evidence of other reviews would be also be good - I note the mention of two others below but without the actual text I can't tell if they are one-line product mentions or something more substantial. I've checked the first 500 google links - anyone want to do the next 500? ;) Euryalus (talk) 02:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in addition to the small (but at least citable) Compute! article, it's listed on Amiga Magazine Rack, there's two reviews there but unfortunately they haven't been scanned so there's no text available to cite. The site itself specializes in Amiga, so the fact there's two reviews for a DOS game within the multi-platform magazines listed there means it's likely that PC specific mags will have reviewed it. Regardless, it is notable because it has been reviewed in multiple magazines from the time, it's just that none of them are currently scanned in ATM. Someoneanother 01:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As with others above, I believe that this video game is highly likely to have sources that meet WP:N. That they would be print articles is not a reason to delete. Yes, this is a guess. But a darn safe one given the publisher. Hobit (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All you Nazi editors are turning Wikipedia into a Crap-o-pedia. I loved Wikipedia a lot more before you all started changing it to fit your ideas of what should and shouldn't be included. Don't you realize you are just like the censors in China who decide what should and shouldn't be knowledge? This article is a important piece of gaming history, so leave it be. If you don't like its inclusion in Wikipedia, then go read some other Wikipedia article. This article doesn't require any third party sources. Just because a journalist writes a news article about a game doesn't make the source any more authoritative than an article by a kid who's played it for hundred's of hours. Wikipedia should include human KNOWLEDGE, and KNOWLEDGE should not be monopolized by those who have access to a printing press, people with high falooting credentials, or bloated reputations. Knowledge is stored in BRAINS, not INK. I do hold a PhD, and anyone with a similar degree should know how limited their knowledge really is. I could easily lend my credentials to third party article about this game, but why would I when I can just edit the Wikipedia article, although I don't anymore because of you Nazi censor editors. If a printing press is your source of knowledge, then your knowledge is very limited indeed. - RL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.159.226 (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - firstly, calling people Nazis is offensive enough to invalidate whatever else you might have to say. Secondly, you might want to actually look at the article before insulting people - you'll find that the only person currently adding references to the page to help build the notability case is one of the people you've just attacked. Thirdly, Wikipedia articles require verifiable sources, and personal opinions (even from people with PhD's like yourself) are regrettably not enough to support them. Euryalus (talk) 22:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep & Tag refimprove - the ad hominems notwithstanding, I trust more reliable sources can still be recovered which would definitely move this from "barely passes the GNG" to solidly referenced. Considering potential, and both the age and the producer (despite the fact that notability isn't inherited) should warrant this one the benefit of the doubt, also per WP:PRESERVE. MLauba (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think just about enough evidence has already been presented above to show notability, and there are more potential sources found by Google Books, and Google Scholar searches. I also found this brief review in the Los Angeles Times and this article that cites it as a stage in the development of this genre. I don't read Hebrew, but this article would seem to give it a few paragraphs, and last (and least) the game's title seems to have inspired a couple of cricket journalists [3][4]. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Merge discussions belong on the article talk pages, not at AfD - there is no consensus for any action here Fritzpoll (talk) 08:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Jim Cramer's appearance on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Put your comment at the bottom next time. Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AND WHATEVER IT'S CALLED WHEN YOU REMOVE THE TEXT IN AN ARTICLE AND PUT IT INTO ANOTHER ARTICLE, DO THAT. AS IN DESTROYING ONE ARTICLE AND PUTTING IT TOGETHER WITH ANOTHER. KIND OF LIKE '''''''''DELETING AND MERGING'''''''''''' Macarion (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fails WP:NOT#NEWS. Also, recentism. Macarion (talk) 04:24, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not merge with Jon Stewart, aside from the fact Stewart is the interviewer and Cramer is the interviewee? JustGettingItRight (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would make more sense to merge with The Daily Show than with Jon Stewart. It has more to do with the show than the personal life or career of Stewart. But I think it has even more to do with Jim Cramer. I think it will have more of an effect on him than anyone else. Maybe it shoudl be included in all three articles. But it doesn't deserve its own. Macarion (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the procedures, but I think in retrospect that this suggestion above and the one just below it make a great deal of sense. The merger can and should be discussed on the talk page of the article itself. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 13:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm changing my vote to a straight keep, as the comparisons to Colbert's speech, and Who Made Huckabee seem apt. But i'll echo what i said about coming back in a month or so to re-examine notability. Not because I don't think it will still seem notable, but because I think a firm consensus decided after the fuss has died down might be better. Umbralcorax (talk) 23:00, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To explain what I said above: I just learned that there is an article on Stephen Colbert's White House correspondents association dinner, which was not as significant as this situation. But I am still uneasy about there being a separate article on this controversy. Here is a suggestion: Given that Stewart says he wasn't being personal and was aiming his jibe at CNBC as a whole, why not create a Criticism of CNBC article and fold this article into that one? --JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (not merge, keep, or redirect) per WP:NOT#NEWS. This "conflict" will have absolutely no historical importance. -Atmoz (talk)
I just wanted to clarify that if this is to be merged, my view is that it would have to be shrunk considerably down in length so as to not dominate the Cramer article. So I agree to that extent with Atmoz. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 01:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete (preferably) or (very much second choice) Merge, mainly per WP:NOTNEWS. Individual appearances on talk shows are not notable. If they were, we'd have an article on Tom Cruise's appearance on Oprah (among many others). These are the kind of brief, transient events that Wikinews was designed to cover, and Wikipedia isn't. Robofish (talk) 03:38, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As for the suggestion that wikipedia ought not disproportionally cover recent events to the dereliction of historical events... you know what the solution to that is, don't you? It's not to delete the articles that make wikipedia imbalanced - it's to create enough new articles to act as a counter balance.
If nothing else, make this article not just about Jim Cramer's appearance but about the episode, as a whole (even though Jim Cramer's appearance pretty much was the episode). That way, the notability standards for TV episodes will apply. Abyssinia, Henry is considered notable, for example, per the notability standards for TV episodes, even though on the importance scale, it's not all that high at all. Remember that notability and importance are not the same thing. TerraFrost 05:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:Pokémon test. Macarion (talk) 05:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:VAGUEWAVE. What about my proposal that notability standards for TV shows be used? What about my actually addressing my Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner question? What about all the reliable sources that can be found on the subject? WP:Pokémon test does not give you cart blanch permission to violate WP:IDONTLIKEIT. TerraFrost 13:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
I'd say that event was rather more notable than this one, as it involved an actual President of the United States being criticised to his face. This was just about the host of one popular TV show interviewing another. I'm sorry, but I just don't see the notability. As for Abyssinia, Henry - yes, it's clearly a sufficiently notable episode to have its own page, but that doesn't mean every television episode is notable. Robofish (talk) 14:10, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The topic at hand isn't every episode - it's this episode. To suggest otherwise is (1) a slippery slope and (2) a red herring. This episode has received a lot of coverage - much more so than the average Daily Show episode. That you think the episode was of little consequence is irrelevant - it's the media's opinion of it that matters. And you're right - maybe it shouldn't be receiving much attention, but, regardless of whether or not it should be receiving attention, it is receiving attention. TerraFrost 22:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
The White House dinner article wasn't known to me, and I can see how that can be used as precedent. See my compromise suggestion in my comment above. If it is merged into a new Criticism of CNBC article, most of this article can be retained and put in context with the widespread criticism of CNBC you see now.--JohnnyB256 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made few other edits. --Ysangkok (talk) 14:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from me as whether it is strictly notable or not, it is information that is clearly pertinent and important enough about Stewart, Cramer, and The Daily Show that the information will be on all of their articles anyway, much like the information about Stewart's appearance on CNN's Crossfire. I'd rather have the information in one coherent article (which this appears to be) than in three or more places in different forms, as the Crossfire mention seems to be. Dgtljunglist (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More and more, I'm finding rampant deletionism makes Wikipedia less useful and in a way that's frustratingly inconsistent. The points User:Macarion brings up about the relative merits of various pages are right on the mark. This should never have been marked for deletion in the first place--merging, at the very least, would have been appropriate from the very beginning. JoeAnderson (talk) 10:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Much of this useful information would be lost in a merge. This is an interview that has been reported on extensively in the major media both in print and broadcast. In other words, this is huge news. I agree with the above comments that rampant deletionism is hurting wikipedia. This article is not frivolous or trivial -- it is about an important recent event touching on the recession & the media. Silk Knot (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As interesting as the show is at times, this is getting out of ahnd, and it's entirely trivial. Dahn (talk) 14:28, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per JoeAnderson, Silk Knot and Dgtljunglist's points. And not to use WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but Who Made Huckabee would be another example similar to the Correspondent's Dinner. This is a significant event in the realm of the shows (and in the mainstream media). Would an article be more accepted if/when an award is won for this episode? DP76764 (Talk) 16:21, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This event has been covered by many new sources and even the White House Press Secretary has mentioned it. MMAJunkie250 (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This event can be summarized/mentioned in other articles; as it stands now the amount of detail in this article is fairly absurd (although, I am of the opinion that if a reader wants a complete expose, that's what references/citations are for). If not delete, then trim it way down and/or merge the most pertinent facts into Daily Show/CNBC. In full disclosure, I participated in the Santelli discussion and a few days ago (before the article in question was created) added the Criticism section to CNBC - a reply is what made me aware of this in the first place.Curious brain (talk) 17:06, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Curious Brain. My feeling is that summarizing it in other articles would unnecessarily clutter them. Right now there are over 1,500 articles in Google's News database about the controversy (including depictions, op eds, overviews, etc). In that sense maybe it is more appropriate for the WikiNews Project? However, my understanding of that project is that it is more geared towards single events (Cramer goes on Daily Show) and not broader descriptions of a series of events (Jon Stewart's 2009 Controversy with CNBC). What's your feeling on this? Rodomontade (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, my impression is that this has had strong implications for CNBC—I think it's worth mentioning that the President's Press Secretary was asked to comment on it. As for the importance to The Daily Show, it seems at least rather important: it was their second highest viewed episode ever, only behind the inauguration episode, and the following day saw thedailyshow.com's highest traffic to date.[7] Rodomontade (talk) 17:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a wikilawyer, so I can't cite precedents and policy/guidelines as well as more experienced folks; I can just give my opinion - but I am just a minimalist, I suppose. From the point of view that this event had different implications for different entities, I am of the opinion that CNBC was affected in a different way then Cramer, so that they are somewhat separate - which is why I sort of prattled about the 'mentioned in other articles' thing. On the other hand, I strongly see the point about consolidation to avoid repetitive statements and provide a centralized location for any relevant information (as Art Smart points out below me - edit conflict :). But, forced to favor delete or keep, I come down on delete in this instance.Curious brain (talk) 18:26, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep When I first got wind of this article, I thought it was a bad idea and favored deletion. However, this event seems to have taken on a seminal quality, being covered repeatedly on ABC and CBS, and even by PBS. (No coverage on NBC, which seems to be a disappointing business decision, rather than a journalistic one.) Also favor keeping because this article covers overlapping areas: CNBC, Jim Cramer, and Jon Stewart. Rather than have this content duplicated in all three articles, transcluding them here seems most efficient. Thanks. --Art Smart Chart/Heart 18:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keith Olbermann has no problem sabotaging his own network to make a political point against CNBC, though Jim Cramer did vote for Obama. JustGettingItRight (talk) 01:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made no other edits prior to this. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • My !vote is Keep and maybe merge, too if this article is, in fact, genuinely nominated for deletion in the first place. Because I don't know if it is, I have asked the nominator for some pertinent information. For future reference, in case it comes in handy, here is what I asked: "Hi, just hoping to clarify something here. In your revised nomination, are you suggesting that this article be deleted or merged, or that it be deleted and merged? If it is the latter, please note that this is not possible. Merged articles must be kept (see WP:MERGE), because this is the only way to preserve the history of the merged material. When articles' contents are merged, their histories remain separate, so both pages have to stay intact. One article will usually be shortened into a redirect, which involves the removal of material from the page, but not the deletion, in the AfD sense, of the page. So, if it really is a merge that you're hoping for, I would recommend withdrawing the nomination and raising the issue on article or WikiProject talk pages." Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable incident and scandal, now that it has been moved. ViperSnake151 14:08, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above. 68.32.149.19 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Weak Keep, lots and lots of noise about this in the news, though it is just an entertainment show, it seems to have had ripples beyond that. LiamUK (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My point is that no one is going to come to Wikipedia for this information. They're going to search YouTube or something. Nothing happened in the interview or "controversy" as they're calling now that is worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Not as its own article I mean. It's been covered by CNN, big deal. So has the Chris Brown/Rihanna scandal, and that doesn't have its own article. At least I hope it doesn't. Also, removing all text on an article and making it redirect to a different page seems like the definition of deleting to me. Macarion (talk) 05:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To answer your last statmenet, you proposed at the top it would be deleted and merged (which you bolded), merging and redirecting are two different things. Epson291 (talk) 05:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know that. Macarion (talk) 05:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added a segemnet on Rick Santellli's page seconds after, I watched the Daily Show Episode. Yet, someone deleted it citing the notablity clause. the give and take was noticeable enough. I don't know about 3 yrs from now when websites archives runs out of those reruns but still it's a topic of debate MAJOR topic of debate today. I would like to know about it and how it unfolds. This article is well researched and deleting will deprive many of a chance to know what happened and who dropped the ball on this one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malmaa (talk • contribs) 09:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it won't, because the information will still be available on other articles. Macarion (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This editor has made few other edits. --Ysangkok (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Great contribution. Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, thank you Macarion (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi SmartGuy. Just a brief question; it was my thinking that the article isn't about the interview itself but about the media circus and public attention surrounding it (second highest watched episode of The Daily Show in history some sources say). Similarly, Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner (previously a featured article) was a one time event. However, it became a source of viral public attention and eventually was acknowledged in the media. Additionally, it seems this has had at least some impact on CNBC. I've seen reports that their ratings suffered (though I'd like to see more sources on that), and NBC has refused to comment about it and may have even buried the story (like to see more sources if that's true as well). What's your thoughts on this? Thanks. Rodomontade (talk) 14:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on the matter are that these events occurred less than two weeks ago. Time will judge whether or not the incident in question is of historical significance. As of today it is a bit part of a much larger story (that story being the global financial crisis) and we should treat it as such by putting the information in appropriate articles. It is by no means a "defining moment" or "defining issue" regarding that larger story, as the Army-McCarthy hearings were to McCarthyism, or Black Tuesday was to the Great Depression. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 15:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah alright. I think I get it now. If I understand you correctly your feeling is that this is part of a larger story and doesn't need its own article. A question just for my clarification, if time may judge that it is of historical significance, then why delete it immediately? I guess I think claiming either (that we can be sure it will/won't be important years from now) is a crystal ball prediction. Second, just for me cause I'm unfamiliar; if it is deleted, what is the process for reactivating articles of this type? In terms of judging notability in the present it already bears, I've seen this floated around, but in my opinion it's difficult to confirm as of yet: Ratings Down for CNBC, Cramer. Also there has been some reporting that CNBC now needs to recover some in the eyes of the public [8] (unfortunately there's a lot more sources on the latter than the former). Thanks for discussing SmartGuy. Cheers.☯ Rodomontade (talk) 16:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC) ☯[reply]
I suggest you save the current content in a sandbox somewhere. That way if it gets deleted you can try resurrecting it at a later date, with more/added/improved information. The incident is certainly notable, but I think that the issue here is whether it is a major event by itself, or if it is something emblematic of a larger situation. I'm inclined to the latter line of thinking. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 02:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a place for well-sourced, newsworthy information on random topics. You wouldn't find an article like this in Encyclopædia Britannica, therefore, at the very least, this 'article' must be merged into, for example, news broadcasting. That is the correct way to organize a digital encyclopedia. --131.111.213.39 (talk) 20:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, certainly notable I think it should be kept -C6541 (T↔C) at 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can something that was essentially a week-long controversy manifesting itself in 5-minute segments really be called notable? I equate it to something along the lines of the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell argument, something that is certainly not worthy of its own article. At the most, this should be condensed and added to a new article about CNBC criticism, notable Daily Show occurrences, or something similar. --166.82.229.37 (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just because it was recent doesn't means it shouldn't be preserved. This mightend up being a fairly major event in Cramer or CNBC's history.24.222.187.216 (talk) 20:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I would like to think that the changes to this article since it was nominated for deletion have brought it to a state where it better demonstrates that it deserves to exist - rst20xx (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename - 1. this article is well researched, well sourced, and well written. 2. there are existing precedents for articles to be created based on little more than a few minutes of TV - the Stephen Colbert one that has been mentioned several times is a good example. 3. This article cannot simply be merged into other, existing articles about related parties. For one, it is far too long. And second, and more importantly, it would be disingenuous to mention it in other articles without properly explaining the background to the event - details that would, once again, be too long to put in other articles. Therefore, it needs it own article. 4. other things have gained as much media attention as this but don't have their own articles because no one could be bothered to make one comprehensive enough. The fact that this one is comprehensive, both in its coverage of the event and, crucially, of the background and aftermath, make it a model for how poorly explained side-notes in existing articles can be expanded and thoroughly explained in their own articles. However, the current name (Jon Stewart controversy...) should be changed. DJR (T) 00:04, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into Jon Stewart. This is a current event that will be forgotten in 3 months. No need for it to have its own article. Juppiter (talk) 03:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi there Juppiter. I'm wondering if this doesn't seem like a crystal ball prediction. It seems to me the notability of this article lies in the large media attention as a reflection of common discourses in American politics and public conscious. To make sure I understand you fully, can you describe why you feel it is non-notable? Maybe you've seen some similar example that evidence this? I appreciate any clarification. Cheers! Rodomontade (talk) 04:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Somebody above said it better than I could... it's like the Donald Trump/Rosie O'Donnell feud. Not a profound change in American politics or something that changed the outcome of an election... this is the news of the day on a slow news day. Giving it its own article is present day bias. Does the Nixon/Kennedy debate have its own article? That was far more influential on American politics than this. Juppiter (talk) 05:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said Juppiter. I feel like I have a much better understanding of your position now. With that in mind, let me ask a further question: If it does not represent a change in American politics or public consciousness (as in being responsible for one), does it reflect a change in American politics or public discourse (as in, one that had already occurred prior to or developed in tandem with these events)? In the latter sense I mean bearing some similarity tothe Frost/Nixon interviews as a cultural event. (Obviously no movies have been made about these events, and I would have to disagree with anyone who said such a project was likely in the future, but I hope you still see my quandary). Thanks for clarifying—Clarity is good for a restful mind. Cheers. Rodomontade (talk) 05:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re: Not a profound change in American politics or something that changed the outcome of an election. Check out WP:N. Although changing the outcome of an election or whatever may be a sufficient condition for notability it is not a necessary one. If you feel that it should be necessary, the place to discuss that would be Wikipedia talk:Notability. TerraFrost (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This topic has surpassed the threshold of a single, self-contained news event by a large margin. The breadth and diversity of coverage and commentary indicate a degree of significance that, at the least, qualifies for its own Wikipedia article. That does not necessarily mean that it will be well-remembered down the road, or that it marks a major turning point in this, that, or the other (although many commentators have suggested that's the case). But it does mean that it is unambiguously notable, that, the article is not mere crystal ballery, and given its breadth and continual development, it also means that it can't just be shoveled off to Wikinews or delete/merged on the basis of "NOT NEWS" (and a careful reading of that rule shows that this kind of thing is clearly not the kind of thing that is excluded by it).--ragesoss (talk) 05:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This interview was a watershed event and is definitely notable.70.253.69.240 (talk) 05:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Biruitorul. Calling it a watershed event would be at best extremely premature—it takes time to ascertain and demonstrate such assessments. At the same time 'wagering' concerning its future importance suffers from the same as both sound like crystal ball predictions. I'd point to Colbert's Association Dinner Speech for an example of an event that was certainly notable at the time, but by no means is a common household or media topic even a couple of years later. Note that the Colbert article is a previously featured one, so whether or not it is considered a 'watershed' in a week/month/year seems to be off subject, no? ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 18:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The original title of the article is slightly misleading; it is not 'one event' in actuality, but a series of events. DP76764 (Talk) 19:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Second that- I think if you read the retitled article you may agree that it isn't defamatory towards any particular individual (though some more balanced criticism of Stewart and his point is needed). The emphasis has been somewhat removed from Cramer and instead placed on media coverage of the event, Stewart's broader criticisms, reactions by the press, etc. ☯ Rodomontade (talk) ☯ 20:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Denigrating an individual refers to a negative bias in tone, like if the Jim Cramer article were written to trash him. This article is about criticism by Jon Stewart, not original Wikipedia-editors' criticism. -- Wikipedical (talk) 00:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the media below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the media's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer)

[edit]
Thomas Pringle (Royal Navy officer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparent hoax -- Admiral Thomas Pringle's details don't match the article. http://www.artfact.com/auction-lot/daniel-gardner-c.1750-1805-1-c-xtjk83171j SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Purged with fire Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Holmes

[edit]
Asher Holmes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There was a prominent military leader named Asher Holmes during the Revolutionary War, but very little in his bio matches up with the one in this article. http://www.monmouthhistory.org/Sections-read-37.html SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 11:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Johannite

[edit]
Johannite (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have been unable to find reliable sources for this topic after searching library resources, and thus unable to establish notability. The content is a blatant promotion of extreme fringe theories. For example, please note the DaVinci Code-esque Knights Templar claim. Vassyana (talk) 21:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The fringe theory stuff is fairly recent vandalism. I have reverted to the non-vandalized version. Edward321 (talk) 02:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep-- Reliable sources are available to establish notability, 1, 2. --J.Mundo (talk) 03:04, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The two sources you provided cover entirely unrelated groups, neither of which has anything to do with the topic of the article up for deletion. The first is simply about a very small group of Jews who had only received the baptism of John, but were taught and baptized in the name of Jesus at Paul's urging. The second is about a knightly order loyal to Byzantine Christianity. The sources cover other topics that have no relation to the article up for deletion. Vassyana (talk) 08:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The references cover the subject of "Johannite". It seems that the article needs expert attention not deletion. Looks like a very interesting and encyclopedic topic. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:14, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, references suggest that the topic of "Johannite" is some kind of myth or legend connected to the Knights Templar, and John The Baptist, 1, 2, 3, 4. There are enough sources to build an interesting article. --J.Mundo (talk) 22:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Just looking for sources that contain the word "Johannite" won't get us anywhere in determining notability. It is simply a word that means "follower of John", and could be applied to any number of groups or beliefs, which could include followers of any other of the millions of people who have had the name John, not only John the Baptist. Wikipedia articles are about topics, not words, so we need sources that are about the subject of this article, not about any other uses of the word Johannite, so anything about any of those other uses or a "myth or legend connected to the Knights Templar" is irrelevant to this article. Let's look at the sources presented above:
[10] refers to a group of Ephesians who venerated John the Baptist, but who accepted Jesus as the Messiah when taught about him by St. Paul, so is not about the subject of this article.
[11] needs checking in a library before we can say in what context it uses the word Johannite, because Google doesn't tell us. Vassyana may already have done this, going by the comment above.
[12] is from a publisher that, according to its web site publishes books on "Atlantic Studies, Alternative Health, Alternative Science, Ancient Science, Anti-Gravity, Conspiracy & History, Cryptozoology, Egypt & the Pyramids, Free Engery Systems, Geometry & Math, Holy Grail & Templar Studies, Lost Cities Series, Mysterious Phenomena, Mystic Travelers Series, Native American Studies, Philosophy & Religion, Strange Science, Tesla Technology, UFO's & Extraterrestrial and more" - doesn't look a reliable source to me.
[13] is written by Lynn Picknett, whose web site doesn't exactly inspire me with confidence in her academic credentials.
[14] mentions Dan Brown in the first sentence of the publisher's blurb displayed, and later says that the author "navigates between the orthodox and the speculative, the historical and the myth", so it's obviously not even intended as a serious factual study of anything.
[15] is self-published via lulu.com, and anyway you only have to glance at the linked page to see what a load of bollocks it is: "colonization and conquest of the American continent was a long term covert Johannite project". Let's get real.

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete and Redirect to a similar event Imperat§ r(Talk) 02:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burning of the Valleys

[edit]
Burning of the Valleys (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably hoax -- no GHits, article creator created other unsourced articles around this time. There's a Wyoming Commemorative Association referring to the first battle, but it doesn't seem to refer to anything else happening there. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- found the following. "True to his word, Dragging Canoe led the Chickamaugas in a strike at the Cumberland settlements in middle Tennessee and destroyed Mansker’s Station in 1779. In April 1780, they attacked Fort Nashborough (Nashville) but lost the battle of the Bluffs. In December 1780, they lost 80 men to forces under John Sevier at Boyd’s Creek near the Little Tennessee River." http://www.smokymountainnews.com/issues/06_03/06_18_03/mtn_voices.html No reference to battle described in article.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, a cursory examination of the text suggests that it is about four Canadian raids during 1780 and is complete unconnected with the subject of this AFD. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further, my thoughts (disclaimer: NOT a historian, NOT a student of this time period) are that this is a hoax but a quite clever one. He's picked a time period and place in which those events *could* have happened and used the names of people who *could* have been involved, however I can find no mention of those events in the book cited above or in any other source. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, to put it in context, @ 270 white Americans were killed at the battle of little big horn, it's claimed that 700 were killed here - and nobody had written about it? pish I say. --Cameron Scott (talk) 23:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. Icewedge (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brain Games Colour

[edit]
Brain Games Colour (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Game engine with no assertion of notability. Google returns very few results. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The IP who contested the prod has just added the following sentence: This device is exclusive to Argos and is little known, which is a recognition of non-notability (but probably not of its consequences). -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 20:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - search turns up only store listings, Youtube and the like: no sign of the "substantial coverage from independent reliable sources" that would indicate notability. JohnCD (talk) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy delete - no content. Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of San Fernando de Omoa

[edit]
Battle of San Fernando de Omoa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a hoax -- http://www.google.com/search?q=%22San+Fernando+de+Omoa%22+%22de+cordova%22 has no relevant hits. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was deleted by Jimmy Wales, so I assume that stops this discussion in its tracks unless anyone wants to argue and start a drama.  – iridescent 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Joseph Christopher

[edit]
Steven Joseph Christopher (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A blatant WP:BLP1E, and IMO not notable enough to warrant an article (there are hundreds of people who've plotted to kill the president at some point). With all due respect I don't agree with Jimbo that it's a cut-and-dried speedy case, but I certainly don't think it should be kept.  – iridescent 20:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was keep, per WP:SNOW, WP:HEY. Editors interested in a merge or rename are invited to discuss the matter on the article talkpage. Non-admin closure by Skomorokh 22:43, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Let's trim our hair in accordance with the socialist lifestyle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

After checking library resources, I have been unable to find any reliable sources outside of a brief burst of news coverage. A short outbreak of "Oh, how odd!" news coverage is insufficient to establish notability. There are not enough sources to craft a good article. The available sources permit us to do nothing more than create a rephrased news article about a one-time burst of coverage (which seems at odds with the principle of WP:IINFO). Vassyana (talk) 20:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - This was a state television show that apparently ran for 5 episodes (It later had additional episodes — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  21:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)) and promoted a not-very-well-founded idea that excessive hair growth hinders intelligence. The show was covered, even if briefly, in multiple reliable sources, which in my mind establishes notability. This was not one event, this was a television show. I do not feel that WP:IINFO applies in this case. Criteria 1 to 4 don't apply. Criterion 5 "News reports" talks about evaluating the historical significance of an event before creating an article. All in all, I may not be articulating myself very well, but I think this show is notable enough for its own article, or at the very least inclusion in some sort of synthesis of propaganda in North Korea or similar. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  20:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you perhaps point us to the sources you mention? Skomorokh 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject had a very brief period of news coverage in early 2005.[18] [19] Vassyana (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here are three media sources [20][21][22] that specifically mention the article name. I'll see if I can find others. --Phenylalanine (talk) 22:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vassyana and Phenylalanine beat me to it. Thanks! — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Update: I've made some changes, writing a bit on the background of "sartorial regulation" under the current leadership, wikifing, adding references, including inline. T L Miles (talk) 02:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]


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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Pacey

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

Unsourced biography of living person about someone working as a website director. Found evidence that he previously worked as radio presenter and currently is the Web editor for the radio station but no other mentions in independent sources. I recommend deleting this entry because a mention in the Radio Forth article is sufficient to cover the content. FloNight♥♥♥ 17:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Valley2city‽ 20:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep most of the delete comments were attacking the strength of the sources or their reliability. Sources for fringe theories that advocate the theories themselves will always run close to the edge, but there are some more mainstream if not exactly high-brow. Notability has been at least minimally established. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pet psychic

[edit]
Pet psychic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This borders to neologism in my opinion; the are no references, so everything is original research, and most of the current text is fluffy clouds at best. →AzaToth 19:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • comment Throws up a lot of G-Hits - References being added is far from improbable. However I wonder if the article would be better off being stubbified (even more so!) and built up from the ground upwards. I'm tagging it with rescue with that in mind. Artw (talk) 20:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The article definitely needs to be neutralized but this is a notable subset of the psychic industry. There's even this(!) [25] 198.74.38.59 (talk) 07:00, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Come on Wikipedia I was logged in, why you gotta be like that. Poechalkdust (talk) 07:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Significant coverage: covered in several television programs, such as The Pet Pyschic.

Reliable, Sources, and Presumed: All mentioned in my statement above.

Independent of the Subject: I don't see any instances of "advertising" or "promotion" in there.

Cheers. Imperat§ r(Talk) 21:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The article subject is notable enough I believe. This is an actual profession that people practice, and has received a lot of coverage as of late. The article definitely needs some work though... -Pax85 (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, maybe redirect to The Pet Psychic, which is somewhat more notable. Pretty weak suggested references, and makes extraordinary claims like "When they realized that they could communicate telepathically, then came the discovery that they could also communicate with animals, even animals that have passed away". Alright, sure, the piss-poor writing isn't a reason to delete, but if we just have brief appearances on a couple talk shows as the only claim to notability, I don't see how we're supposed to improve the article, or sort out those referencing problems. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Ariel Sharon. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Illnesses of Ariel Sharon

[edit]
Illnesses of Ariel Sharon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Inappropriate fork, any relevant material belongs in the main Ariel Sharon article. Putting it in a separate article like this is undue weight. Also, the section on "Obesity" (in itself a problematic heading caption) contains several negative, unsourced statements that violate WP:BLP. *** Crotalus *** 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 23 July 2006, CNN reported that Sharon's condition was deteriorating and his kidney function was worsening.[11] On 26 July 2006 doctors moved him to intensive care and began hemofiltration.[12] On 14 August 2006 doctors reported that Sharon's condition worsened significantly and that he was suffering from pneumonia in both lungs.[13] On 29 August, doctors reported that he had been successfully treated for his pneumonia and moved out of intensive care back to the long-term care unit.[14]

On 3 November 2006, it was reported that Sharon had been admitted to intensive care after contracting an infection, though doctors insisted that his condition was 'stable'.[15] He was moved out of the intensive care unit on 6 November 2006 after treatment for a heart infection. Doctors stated that "his heart function has improved after being treated for an infection and his overall condition has stabilised".[16]

He was sick and moved between hospital rooms. As if there wasn't enough to write about an important and controversial prime minister and military leader. Put this article out of its misery. --GRuban (talk) 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zhang Jun (Economist)

[edit]
Zhang Jun (Economist) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:N and WP:V cf38talk 18:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feces bandit

[edit]
Feces bandit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable "bandit". While story was reported in local new, this appears to be an example of WP:BLP1E. CSD and Prod tags removed by IP. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fever (Little Nell song)

[edit]
Fever (Little Nell song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
Fever Remix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Non-notable, non-charting single, bundling for discussion with the non-charting remix single of the same song. Both fail WP:NSONGS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 18:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bobbi Miller-Moro

[edit]
Bobbi Miller-Moro (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable individual Tom 17:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give some links to the acclaim, keeping in mind that article for the movie most likely is heavly edited by TG4M (aka Bobbi Miller-Moro), so it has NPOV issues and needs a template I guess. — raeky (talk | edits) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough... acclaim of the film found through a Google search, many of which were not included in the Love and Suicide article: After Ellen, "review of Love and Suicide", Miami Herald, "Ignoring embargo, Americans film in Cuba", Moving Pictures Magazine, "Love & Suicide", Zimbio, "Inside the Making of Love & Suicide.", Passion abd Perfection, "Love and Suicide", Film Radar, "Love and Suicide (2005) - Support Obama in lifting the embargo from Cuba", TV Guide video, "Cuba's Love & Suicide, the movie", Hudson Reporter, "The Revolution Begins Within", Zimbio, "Public Magazine interviews filmmakers Luis Moro and Pete Maez on the making of the biggest little picture Love & Suicide. Shot in Havana, Cuba by Cuban-American Filmmakers.", Zimbio, "Independent Filmmaker Luis Moro believes he is the best Running Mate for Obama?", National Association of Latino Independent Producers, "LOVE & SUICIDE", et al. So the film and filmmakers have acclaim. This returns to my original statements and question: She starred in and co-produced the film. He orther film career is rather minimal. So does he work within production and cast of an aclaimed film contribute to her notability? My thought here is to give the article a major sandblasting to eliminate the POV and ADVERT now that it belongs to wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:25, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But does that independent movie make her notable by the criteria of WP:N? We don't have pages for every producer and small time actor in small independent films. Beyond that movie what else would make her notable? At best these references establish notability for the movie, not herself, she needs more then this to be notable enough to have a page. There needs to be reliable secondary sources about _her_ and not projects she's participated in. — raeky (talk | edits) 08:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My question too. I believe her notability is minimal, but just barely enough. And to answer your hypothetical, it would depend on how much press the "small independent film" received... and this one has received tons, which sets it apart from the pack as it were. ANd this slipery slope of WP:NOTINHERITED has to recognize the contributions of those who created the Notable project. Notice my lack of vote? I'm not convinced one way or the other, but we are each one of us defined by what we do and how it is received... and that is also a measure of notability. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I agree with your assertion that this film has received "tons" of press. The google search you provided only yields 2,220, which quite frankly is almost nothing for google. rottentomatoes.com has recorded zero reviews, amazon.com has four customer reviews. movieweb.com doesn't even have it listed. nytimes.com has virtually no info, and only two user votes. These websites are very high traffic, if the movie was notable at all and had any audience they should reflect that? — raeky (talk | edits) 10:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably also making a case for an AfD on that movie's page as well on grounds of WP:N. — raeky (talk | edits) 10:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Pardon my hyperbole... only offered because the film indeed has had ample coverage for an Indy, and I have simply responded to your original request up above about the film's "acclaim". I am not myself impressed or bothered by lack of a NYT blurb or a Rotten Tomatoes review, as they (like Wiki) are quite far from being an all-inclusive database for film. It would have been helpful, certainly, but the film does exceed the inclusion requirements set by WP:NF by having multiple, in-depth reviews in reliable sources... and WP:NF does not in any way mandate that these be the NYT or RT. Note that I still have not gone one way or the other... and this has kinda taken us away from my original question. Now its a pity that her co-production of and acting in the film is not already in the film's wiki article (noted below), but hey... we already know that wiki is not a reliable source (chuckle) and leaves out far more than it includes... and her participation in those capacities has been elsewhere WP:Verfied. Full circle.... does her co-producing and acting in an acclaimed film give her any notability as actor or producer? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel that being a co-producer or playing a minor role in a minor film is notable enough to justify her own page. Mention on the movies page (if it indeed qualifies as notable for inclusion) sure, but her own, I don't think so. As for mention of her as co-producer, she herself didn't add that to the pages info, and again in this page shes building on her user space for their future film doesn't list her as co-producer. You'd think that if she was actually a co-producer she would list herself as one. Sure she's a partner in her husbands company, but an actual listed producer, I'm not so sure. Notable enough to have a page I don't think has been demonstrated. — raeky (talk | edits) 06:30, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(exdent for convenience) Comment I just wanted to note that the article for Love and Suicide doesn't mention the subject's name as being a producer. She certainly asserts that that is the case in the body of the autobiographic article, but there is other evidence to suggest that she isn't. For instance, one of the above-cited reviews at Zimbio, "Inside the Making of Love & Suicide." says "Bobbi Miller-Moro could carry several job titles in her husband’s independent film production company: production coordinator, marketing director, actor, publicist, and fan manager." (Another of the references above is to a different film with the same name, the After Ellen, "review of Love and Suicide" article.) Accounting4Taste:talk 23:45, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck "AfterEllen" link above) And please note that I was NOT offering those sources as any proof of Bobbi's notability..... only answering User:Raeky's request for sources showing the film had itself been the subject of much attention. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't find any reliable sources that give any notability to this article. I'm "the guy who started all this", to quote the autobiographer, and held off on expressing my opinion until I could see if the subject or anyone else could come up with any reliable sources at all to justify retaining this article. None have appeared. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment' Note that the autobiographer suggests "And I'll wait until I can hire a professional company to put back all five wiki pages and bio's that are up for deletion besides mine that I created." so I recommend SALT. Accounting4Taste:talk 16:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Pre-emptive salting should be avoided. If she has the poor judgement to actually recreate the article soon (assuming it does get deleted now), it can be done then. And who knows, if she leaves well alone for a few years she might be notable enough at some point; which would be demonstrated ideally by somebody unconnected creating a bio using a number of clearcut reliable sources. Rd232 talk 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I placed all the pages she created on PROD, they're all equally not notable and unsourced. Valerie Hoffman, Simone Sheffield, John Steckley, and this page (and all the images that was linked was clear copyright violations) Aria (singer). It seems see doesn't understand what wikipedia is and thinks it's a webhost from her comments on your talk page. — raeky (talk | edits) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete From my searching around I can't also find anything to qualify her for WP:N the movie she "stared" in will also likely fail WP:N if it was put up for AfD I suspect since any movie website of note doesn't reflect it has notability that I can find. — raeky (talk | edits) 23:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The company's two films to date may scrape by WP:NF, but Bobbi's self-published book, apparently small role acting in Love and Suicide plus usual indie-style doing-a-bit-of-everything behind the scenes on it ([30]) don't qualify for notability for me. And good reliable sources on any of this group of topics seem hard to come by, again a symptom of limited notability. Delete this and nominate relate articles. Rd232 talk 02:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. With the comment that the part of WP:NFF that says ...should not have their own articles unless the production itself is notable per the notability guidelines." refers only to films that have begun production. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Casanovva

[edit]
Casanovva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete was tagged speedy for no context, but there is sufficient context to figure out what this article claims it's about. It's still WP:CRYSTAL and not WP:N. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as I have done a bit of research, and found that with the "other" spelling of "Casanova" (one "v"), and including the star Mohanlal, there is enough per WP:GNG to meet the requirements of WP:NFF through a Google search. I have sourced the article to show a bit of this coverage. It will benefit from further expansion and sourcing, certainly. I suggest that the name be changed after this AfD to bettr reflect the one most often used by English sources. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 18:50, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note Per Google news search: Principal filming to begin in 3 weeks per Galatta, March 6 2009, "Arya's Casanova begins" (...has been scheduled to start rolling by the first week of April) and Screen, March 13 2009, "Tamil star Arya makes Malayalam debut" (..shoot will commence on April 5 in Vienna). With respects to the nom, with a diligent search under its alternate spelling, coverage meets and exceeds requirements of WP:GNG and WP:NFF. Filming is now imminent. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm going to stick with WP:NFF here. Principal photography has not yet begun, therefore this film should not have its own article. I wouldn't be opposed to recreating the article after sources have confirmed that principal photography has begun, however. Matt (talk) 09:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:IAR and the guideline instruction "best used with common sense and the occasional exception" seem quite cogently to apply here. We're talking about filming beginning in a matter of days, for goodness sake... not some date next year. HOWEVER, and that aside, the artilce indeed passes WP:NFF because of A) its exceptional coverage in RS that surpass the GNG, and B) the fact that it is sourced as being the costliest Malayalam film ever made to date. Even with filming not beginning for a few nore days, its already a keeper. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense that a film that hasn't even been made cannot have any kind of assertion of notability, nor can the fact that one can, by drawing boundaries narrowly enough, come up with meaningless superlatives imparts any real notability. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 08:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

8Delete per nom and others: WP:NFF & [WP:N]]. Eusebeus (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another Mindless Rip Off

[edit]
Another Mindless Rip Off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable limited edition EP with little or no media coverage of substance. Fails WP:NALBUMS. TheJazzDalek (talk) 17:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I think you have stumbled onto a real problem area. As I examine Template:Mindless_Self_Indulgence, I see a massive series of articles devoted to a marginally notable group. Their singles have charted, but only on the fairly insignificant "Hot Dance Singles Sales" chart ... couldn't make Dance Club Play or Dance Airplay, much less a mainstream chart like the Hot 100 or Pop 100. Two of their albums fared a little better. It's really hard to justify 30 articles, one per non-charting single, one per non-charting album, one per promo EP, one per promo single, and full biographies of every member of the band.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LEAVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.180.242.109 (talk) 17:34, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global Islamic insurgency theory

[edit]
Global Islamic insurgency theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

"Global Islamic Insurgency is a hypothesis formulated by Dr David Kilcullen, an Australian counterinsurgency and counterterrorism theorist."
As far as I can tell, this is the private theory of Dr Kilcullen. Google has 2 pages of hits for "Global Islamic insurgency theory", indicating that this term is not in widespread use.
This page fails to meet wikipedia's notability criteria. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or personal opinions, even if they are given a grandiose name.
There are some other issues with that page as well (it is littered with various tags), but I feel that the notability criterion alone is a sufficient reason for deletion. Jasy jatere (talk) 16:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep - it was I who removed the PROD, mainly on the basis that while this is just a theory developed by one person (a bit like this...), it seems to have some decent sources, some notability etc. I think I understand what Jasy means by a "private theory" - I just don't believe that this is one. Nearly, but not quite ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you point out the decent sources? There are two sources in the list of refs. The first one is Kilcullen's paper. The second one has something to do with the cartoon controversy, and is only peripherally related to the topic. Seems to me that the number of independent sources for this article is exactly 0.Jasy jatere (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
could you point out how you establish the article's notability? Two pages of google hits is not much, and the hits are answers.com etc Jasy jatere (talk) 17:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the two .mil refs, as well as the .ac.uk one (from the British Defence Academy) confer sufficient notability. Please also note that my vote was a weak keep, and I (friendly-ly!) advise that you don't harangue everyone who votes against your wishes here; it's a discussion, people have different views! ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had not taken into consideration the external links, which are not refs proper. The ac.uk gives a 404, the mil sources either do not mention "insurgency" at all, or advocate an approach different from Kilcullen's. A quote: "In the case of the current war on terror, the enemy the United States needs to confront is not al Qaeda per se, but rather the conditions that gave rise to al Qaeda in the first place. "[31]. I am not really sure why these links are there, but they do not seem to support GIIT.Jasy jatere (talk) 18:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK. But I still consider that, on balance, the article should probably be kept, hence weak keep. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 18:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources can be provided that show this theory is being used by anyone. While the sources seem to show that governments may share this mans view, they don't seem to show anything else. We need sources showing that his theory is influencing someone, and not just regurgitating a common view. Beach drifter (talk) 17:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After re-reading I fail to see how this "theory" is anything but a drawn out description of what terrorism and insurgency is. I think most of us are aware that this is what is going on in some parts of the world, and it's not because of this mans theory that we know it. Beach drifter (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:08, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junoon Tamil

[edit]
Junoon Tamil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Project Koussar

[edit]
Project Koussar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete - This article relies solely on a single, speculative piece in Jane's Defence Weekly that was published in 2006. No official government source is on record confirming the report. In 2009, there is only 2 English language references to "Project Koussar" in the whole of Google News. [32]. Dynablaster (talk) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Jane's Defence Weekly is probably the most respected defense magazine there is. Why did you limit your search to Google News only? There's a mention in this book: [33]. Project Koussar/Kowsar is mentioned also in this CSIS presentation [34]. Then there is the recent mention in the RIA Novosti article. As for the missile, it might be the same as Shahab-6, or it might not. If people don't want this article to exist, then a merge to Shahab-6 could also be possible. Offliner (talk) 17:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are stretching these few sources beyond breaking point. A single CSIS paper in 2 plus years, that says only: "Some sources claim that Iran has begun a new missile development project (project Koussar/Kowsar) to develop an IRBM". There is simply not enough information here to justify a page on Wikipedia. Dynablaster (talk) 17:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject is mentioned in four different high-class, reliable sources. It is however, a speculative and unconfirmed missile project. A merger to Shahab-6 could also be possible, since they might be same missile, although Jane's specifically mentions that it is different from the Shahab line of missiles. Offliner (talk) 17:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only source that discussed "Project Koussar" at length was Jane's Defence Weekly -- just once, back in the year 2006. The rest appear to be brief, single sentence references to a project that doesn't actually exist. If Project Koussar were real, there would be lots of references by now in every major defense publication. This wiffs of the kind of speculation we saw before the invasion of Iraq. Dynablaster (talk) 18:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added some more refs. Actually there seem to be quite many sources which mention Project Koussar/Kowsar, but some seem to think that it is simply another name for Shahab-6. In any case, Iran's IRBM/ICBM aspirations and alleged programs are discussed at length in multiple reliable sources, and for this reason the general subject is definitely notable and important enough for Wikipedia. However, it is unclear in which articles we should put the material in. Offliner (talk) 18:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most definitely not "Project Koussar" because this project name is not known to exist, and most of the sources you have produced on the main page only reference "Project Koussar" very briefly, in the context of what unnamed sources quote other sources as saying. It's a vicious circle of non-reporting and name-dropping. Dynablaster (talk) 19:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think I'd have to agree with Dynablaster on this one. I only got one hit on Google News for Project Koussar -- there was a link to the BBC's website, but the article there didn't actually mention Project Koussar, it was just an article dealing with something Obama said to/about Iran. I think this article has failed to assert its notability. Matt (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, why are you limiting your search to Google News only? Does this mean that books and defense journals are not reliable sources at all, only news articles are? As far as I know, Google News hits is in no way a factor in determining notability. Coverage in reliable sources is. Did you check the refs used in the article? [35][36][37][38][39]. Do you mean that the information about the alleged Iranian IRBM/ICBM project should not be present anywhere in Wikipedia, or just not in this article under this name? Offliner (talk) 07:53, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Information about an alleged Iranian IRBM/ICBM program might be notable -- editors with greater understand of the subject matter will know the answer to that -- but so far as Project Koussar goes, most references only repeat what other sources quote unnamed sources as saying. Project Koussar is no more than a footnote, and certainly not a Wikipedia page. Dynablaster (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment Dynablaster and others may not be aware just exactly what/who Janes is? Imagine for a moment, this is Wikipedia during the height of the Cold War. Using the argument used above, did you know that articles on a large amount of Tupolev, MiG, Sukhoi, etc aircraft would not exist, because a lot of the early information on these aircraft, whilst the Soviet government didn't confirm (and sometimes denied) the existence of many of them, cames from Janes? Janes is a world-renounced authority on defence issues, and presents information similar to globalsecurity.org, fas.org, etc, just without all the ideological/political bullshit. Furthermore, as other outlets are commenting on the potential Iranian program, gives it notability for this project. And please remember one of the core policies of WP, that being WP:V, which clearly states "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The information in the article is verified, and is attributed correctly. And is notable. So there is no need to simply delete this, but expand it once more information becomes available. --Russavia Dialogue 06:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
None of that is relevant to reason I provided for nominating this article. Yes Project Koussar came to attention in Jane's Defence Weekly in 2006. Once. Then nothing. No reliable publication has advanced the story since that time. We have a handful of sources that mention the topic cautiously, using phrases like "according to" and "sources claim" etc. The whole thing is circular. Depth of coverage is poor. We should not be describing the story of Iran's IRBM/ICBM aspirations under the name of a project that A) is unlikely to exist and B) which only produces 32 unique hits in the whole of Google! [40] Perhaps there is better way of getting at the bigger picture. But honestly, Project Koussar really is a footnote at best. Dynablaster (talk) 00:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've seen some major mistakes in Jane's flagship publications go uncorrected across multiple editions and some ideological articles pretending to be 'analysis' published in JDW, so it shouldn't be assumed that Jane's is flawless (case in point: each annual edition of Jane's Sentinel states that the Timor Leste Defence Force's naval unit hasn't yet been formed, but Jane's Fighting Ships states that it has two patrol boats and 150 sailors - both obviously aren't right, but they've never bothered to fix whichever very expensive reference book is wrong). Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Redirected. BJTalk 22:12, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lion head

[edit]
Lion head (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Minnesota Twins minor league players. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Parmelee

[edit]
Chris Parmelee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor league baseball player. Saying that he "could be" good in the "next few years" is speculation. Could be notable then, but isn't now. Wizardman 15:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You could redirect, but presumably his name eventually will be dropped from the article when he's no longer in their minor league system, and someone will have to remember to go back and delete it or change the redirection. BRMo (talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Merges and redirects cn be discussed on the appropriate talk pages Fritzpoll (talk) 11:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James Cawley

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
James Cawley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Recreation of previously WP:SNOW-deleted fan-fiction webisode actor who does not meet WP:CREATIVE. His non-profit artistic contributions are not discussed in the media as artistic, but as a "Hey, isn't that weird" human interest story, but WP:NOT#NEWS. At best, this is a WP:BLP1E that should be merged with Star Trek: Phase II (fan series). THF (talk) 15:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete per WP:BIO, though a redirect might be accaptable. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - If this is an actual recreation of deleted content, then deleted it per CSD. However, creating a new article on the topic != recreation; given citations to NPR and Wired, I doubt this article as it currently exists would have been snowed. I know the Wired article has a bit more information about Cawley; whether sufficient to sustain/improve the article's sources, I don't know -- but, in working at James T. Kirk, I was surprised to see the article does, itself, discuss Cawley's performance (separate from the notable fan series project as a whole). I'll let folks better versed in the standards for actor pages decide. Lastly, at worst I'd suggest this content be merged to the series page (as half suggested by the nominator) -- and a talk-page discussion about a merge/redirect probably would have been a better first step (esp. considering the nominator's role in an ongoing content dispute that involves inclusion of this actor/his role at James T. Kirk).
  • Strong Keep - This is a cynical attempt to short-circuit a consensus and logic he disagrees with in the James T. Kirk article. Indeed, the nominator attempted to remove the info via redirect previously. AGF doesn't mean putting blinders on to clearly cynical behavior, and THF has expressed his clear opposition to the fan-series, using many of the arguments that anons and sock-puppets have. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are you suggesting that someone made 11,000+ edits in a sockpuppet account over three years so they could influence a debate over a James Tamberlin Kirk article in 2009? Seems implausible, at a minimum. Please WP:AGF. There's more than one person in the world who disagrees with you. THF (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not considering you a sock. I am questioning your cynicism at offering multi-planed forum-shopping to moot an argument for which you cannot find consensus elsewhere in place of abiding by a consensus you personally disagree with. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 18:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As best I can tell, your supposed consensus consists of you and a single other editor who is lukewarm about your position, against two Wikiprojects that think you're wrong, at least three editors on the Kirk page who disagree with you, and what is very close to WP:SNOW on this page. How am I forum-shopping? Where else should I bring an AFD? THF (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you are misreading the views in the other wikiprojects, and you might wish to contribute there. Three editors in the Kirk page, two of which were blocked as socks, and one for 3RR - you are not among them. As for forum-shopping, I clarified that elsewhere. You sought to remiove/marginalize the actor in the Kirk artiucle infobox. When that didn't work, you sought to redirect the actor's article. When that didn't work, you removed the actor from the infobox altogether. When that didn't work, you then filed an AfD. Whatever happened to just dealing with not getting your way? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by "didn't work"? You reverted my edit, therefore it "didn't work" because I refused to edit-war? It's not like there isn't a consensus for any of the suggestions I have made; just because you refuse to recognize that consensus doesn't mean I'm in the wrong. You can have the WP:LASTWORD, which will be further evidence of your ultimate correctness. THF (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - James Cawley's William Shatner impersonation of James T. Kirk (down mimicing Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines) is a borderline parody by most accounts. Cawley organized and operates the "production" team that does Phase II, so the fact that he is playing Captain Kirk online was decided by himself and himself alone. He is just a hobbiest who has received some attention on special interest pieces. James Cawley was also part of the Star Trek: Hidden Frontier group. That storyline has not been included in the main Star Trek article, while Phase II (for some unknown reason) has been included. It makes no sense whatsoever to include fan fiction in the primary bio. Furthermore, none of the other Star Trek characters (except Spock) have the fan-actors listed in the "Portrayed By" box item. This included all the characters in Phase II, as well as the Next Generation characters that were replayed on Hidden Frontier (see Wesley Crusher for an example). Marfoir (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you cite your interpretation in your first statement "mimicing[sic] Shatner's unsual method of delivering lines"? I don't seem to be able to find a citation for that through a reputable, reliable source. Cawleys's involvement in other fan productions was due to his involvement in the Phase 2 production, existing at the same time as Hidden Frontiers. As the portrayal has received independent sourcing from a non-fan news outlet, its notable. That other characters do not have noted fan portrayals is more a function of a rotating cast list - which doesn't really set a precedent for a notable fan portrayal. I don't follow Hidden Frontier as much; the production values and acting was sub-par (actually, some of it was excruciating to watch). So, show us some support for your statements, please. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 16:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought not. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I assume from your question that you haven't actually watched New Voyages? If you haven't, I suggest you watch an episode and then compare it to one of the two fan-fiction speaking cameos Cawley had when he wasn't playing Kirk. You will notice a clear difference between his Shatner impersonation and the other two characters. Marfoir (talk) 20:22, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • And I ask you again, do you have a citation for that review, or are you adding your own interpretation? If thelatter, it has no place here (as its akin to belly-achin' about whether Kirk or Picard would win a fight, and about as important). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • AGF doesn't mean overlooking bad behavior, Luke. The fellow accuses me - incorrectly, mind you - of wikihounding, and then turns around and performs a textbook wikihounding? Perhaps you aren't really seeing the full picture here. Opposing in AfD is one thing. Going to the article and reverting an editor who's had you blocked at least twice before is not deserving of good faith. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 17:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a deletion debate, and I see no reason to believe that these are anything but DreamGuy's sincere views on the article. He cites policy, and it seems consistent with votes I've seen him make on other debates. If you have a behavioral issue with an editor (which you may), AFD is not the place to bring it. Cool Hand Luke 18:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I recall, it was either you or EEMIV who accused me of socking after you blocked me for making the very edits that are now in place on the Kirk wiki. But to answer your question, I have been patiently waiting to continue our discussion since you abused your position here and had me silenced. I don't have much of a history on Wikipedia, but I have been around here & there with some minor edits once in a while. So no, I am not a sockpuppet. Erikeltic (talk) 18:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, it was not I who blocked you, though I supported it. And yeah, you were socking, but you were blocked and paid for it. Forgive me for taking your opinion with a grain of salt - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - perhaps you missed the reference to the Wired story as well? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please be courteous and sign your name, especially if you made snarky comments like that. Drmies (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No snarkiness intended; given that you didn't note the Wired or NPR articles, I am guessing you had not used them to base your evaluation. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Cawley meets inclusion guidelines. His work as a producer and actor in Star Trek: New Voyages (which was nominated for a Hugo) allows him to pass WP:N (Entertainers). His small role in the new Star Trek (2009 film) cements this, as does the coverage in NPR. I understand and respect the belief that as a creator of "fan fiction" he is non-notable, but the level of involvement he has had in notable works clearly places him over the line and this article should be kept. JRP (talk) 20:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - By redirecting to the Phase II page, many of the other works James Cawley are involved in that I believe are worthy of a Wikipedia page will be removed. Not only is Cawley the star/creator of Star Trek:Phase II, but also he has a role in the upcoming Star Trek movie and owns the rights and is in the midst of producing an official Buck Rogers web series. - Plinstrot 13:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.48.2 (talk) [reply]
    • Comment Looking at 76.103.48.2's history, it would appear that this contributor has a vested interest in Cawley staying in the main section of the bio as he has been almost exclusively editing content related to New Voyages and Cawley. Please remember that a "neutral point of view is a fundamental Wikimedia principle." Neutral_point_of_view Erikeltic (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • You're probably right that as someone who has largely edited this page (and maybe created it, I don't remember), my opinions are likely biased. However, I just want to note that I have no relation whatsoever to James Cawley, Star Trek: Phase II, or any fan film productions. I'm not even a Star Trek fan. I just came across the project from an article featuring it on the front of Yahoo.com and was amazed at what was being accomplished. Plinstrot 20:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Plinstrot > I had to comment on what you wrote. First, I appreciate the fact that you are keeping a really cool head about all of this and I applaud you for that. However, your statement "I'm not even a Star Trek fan" is false as you are one of Youtube's primary promoters of the Star Trek: New Voyages fan franchise. A word to the wise--don't be deceitful here. Marfoir (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Nice find. Plinstrot, please review Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest before you make any more false statements about your neutrality on the issue. Erikeltic (talk) 00:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • First of all, as I stated, my opinions ARE likely biased, AKA I am not disputing that the fact that I've made edits to this and the New Voyages page and thus my opinions may very well be not neutral/biased, so take them with a grain of salt. But what is this about me being "deceitful" or making "false statements"? I was being 100% truthful when I said I am absolutely not a Star Trek fan (or Trekie or whatever). What I am a "fan" of is Star Trek: Phase II/New Voyages. I don't care about Spock or Kirk, what I am interested is what motivated fans and amitures create both in fan films and online web series. The reason I have Phase II videos on YouTube is because I uploaded them before any other of their videos were on the site, hoping to help give them exposure. Disclaimer: I'm also a member of the Phase II message boards, where I know I made posts saying how I'm in no way a Star Trek fan as long as two years ago. So next time, try and read what someone actually wrote before calling me deceitful. I'm a fan of the quality of the fan films, but not really one of the sereis it's based on (I'm not even sure if I've ever seen a full episode and I know I've never seen any of the movies). P.S. I'm not trying to have an attitude here, just correct Erikeltic and Marfoir's assumptions.Plinstrot 9:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cawley break 1

[edit]
  • Keep - Notability is established as an actor in Star Trek: New Voyages and Star Trek (2009 film), and as producer of producer in Star Trek: New Voyages and other projects. Esasus (talk) 20:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Multiple people have based their "Keep" !vote on the ground that Cawley is in Star Trek (2009 film). A look at IMDB shows that his "character" is listed behind "Vulcan Bully #2" and doesn't have a name -- I presume is in the movie as a cameo extra, and he may even have added the entry to IMDB himself. THF (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps we should start a "Vulcan Bully #2" wiki for that actor and list every second Vulcan bully from each Trek epsiode and movie. Erikeltic (talk) 22:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • James Cawley's role is as a glorified extra in the film (though he was chosen specifically by JJ, who is a fan of Cawley's work on Phase II), but just so you know, the placement on IMDB actor lists is often not indicative of the size of the actors role in the film or project. Plinstrot 21:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe ease off on the cross-examination, THF; I am guessing you'd likely not take a shine to being questioned that way. And so what if its a non-speaking role. When was your last film performance? Your last major role in a web-series? How about your last gig as an Elvis impersonator? Until then, I think the death of a thiusand cuts is very thinly-disguised anti-fan film discrimination. I get it; I just don't think such behavior belongs here in Wikipedia where good solid content exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arcayne (talk • contribs)
I was on C-SPAN twice last night, with a rerun on C-SPAN2 later today; does that count? And I've had six notable people over at my house for Super Bowl parties. I don't see the relevance, though: are you seriously suggesting that someone who isn't a film-star isn't in a position to adjudicate the notability of a non-speaking extra role in a movie? THF (talk) 16:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:05, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've done some additional searches for sources. In addition to Wired and NPR coverage as described above, I have found these two.
    • Cawley is mentioned in an April 2008 article in a Burlington, VT newspaper which covers his appearance on a talk show ("Late Night Saturday"), but this may be a local show. (Found w/ ProQuest)
    • Cawley is mentioned in Consumer Tribes, a 2007 book. ([41]) (Found w/ Google Scholar) They are "reverend guests at the StarTrek conventions they once attended as fans.
I don't make a position whether these two sources add to his notability. I stand by my argument above. JRP (talk) 00:14, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If being mentioned in a book is a notable source, I'd mention he's interviewed throughout the book Homemade Hollywood (though as are many less notable fan film creators).
  • Also, a few other potentially noteable things about Cawley are a) he's been featured in a number of lists (at least once at number one) on most influential/important Star Trek fans, b) he provided set pieces to the Enterprise TV show, who in turn named a ship on the series after his home town, c) he actually worked as an assistant costumer on TNG (if I remember correctly), and d) as I mentioned before, his level of production and managing of the series (which I'm sure has been noted in other reputable sources) led the owners of the Buck Rogers property to give him the rights to turn it into a live action show.Plinstrot 8:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
With the exception of Wired, these citations appear to be Star Trek publications and one Sci-Fi publications. Bignole stated his feelings on this subject very clearly inWikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Question_about_character_spoofs.2Fsatires_and_non-studio_portrayals. Furthermore, the NPR piece which keeps being used was a special interest/ "Hey, isn't that weird" piece. That is part of the reason why we are having this discussion. Cawley is only notable for being a fan that produces his own Star Trek webisodes, starring himself as the captain. Marfoir (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Cawley's notability is easily established by his connections with Star Trek: Phase II and now with the new feature film (even as an extra, this is not something just anyone gets to do). A simple Google search turns up non-trivial mentions from NPR, Wired, USA Today, The Washington Post, Forbes, The LA Times, The Totonto Star, Chicago Tribune, and many others. Also, for the claim above that his only notability is in connection with his fan series, that is not true. Cawley is producing a new licensed Buck Rogers series for the web, as reported here: [48], [49] - with that in addition to the Trek mentions, I have no qualms about keeping the article. MikeWazowski (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 21:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As other ediors have pointed out (and I will not duplicate their efforts), Cawley's notability seems to be easily and firmly established with multiple media references, as well as a chapter devoted to him and his project in Clive Young's recently published book, Homemade Hollywood. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Cawley's notability has been clearly established. Even a minor role in the upcoming film is significant, because the sole reason for his inclusion in the film is the director's appreciation for his work. Although his success in his "field" is unprecedented, it's no less success and no less notable. —— Digital Jedi Master (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Strong consensus to delete. MBisanz talk 03:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Typical Objects for C++

[edit]
Typical Objects for C++ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Software programming package, no assertion of notability. The use of the term "yet another" in the lead section is a sign that there is no notability to be found for this anywhere. Additionally, the package creator's name (Alexey Morozov) matches that of the article creator, and his e-mail address is included. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:39, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

  • No, don't. Typical Objects for C++ is the one and only one realization of pure C++ introspection. Check demo application please. It's 100% notability. The C++ world should know about it. User:Alexey_Morozov - timed 17:53, 13 March 2009(Moscow)
    • Notability is not defined as "the world should know". It is defined as "the world already does know"". -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 15:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Exactly. Now the world knows Typical Objects for C++. But after deletion it forgets about that. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:14, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
        • Exactly. The world does know because of a Wikipedia article. That's a misuse of Wikipedia. The right way to use Wikipedia is, make your product known to the whole world, and then start the Wikipedia article. Do you really think Microsoft Windows became a world leader because it was first mentioned in Wikipedia?

          I have a feeling you don't have a clue what we mean by notability. Start the article once the product becomes well-known, not so that it becomes well-known. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 21:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

          • Sure. The product is well-known already. I know it well for example.Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:31, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)


*Speedy delete (G12) as a copy-vio of. http://tocxx.110mb.com/. Tagged as such. Themfromspace (talk) 15:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I don't think a speedy is appropriate here; the site you reference appears to have been created since the article in question. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sure. I as the author created the page for demo application of Typical Objects for C++. Sources are not yet published but will be I hope. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 22:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete. No evidence of reliable sources discussing this framework. Appears to be original research. JulesH (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And that's no comment, BTW, on the quality of the research in question. I for one am intrigued by this, having used similar packages in languages like Java and C#, but having believed it impossible to produce one in C++ due to lack of language support for reflection. But until there are reliable source commentaries on it, and I have little doubt there will be some at some point, it isn't appropriate for wikipedia. JulesH (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's wrong. Demo application at http://tocxx.110mb.com/demo.zip is enough reliable as source for discussing this framework. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • M. Morozov, you're the author both of this article and of the subject, so please first read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You're also asserting that no sources have been published, so also read Wikipedia:Verifiability. You're mis-using Wikipedia as a publisher of first instance for documenting the undocumented, so read Wikipedia:No original research. You're asserting that without Wikipedia advertising your creation the world would have zero knowledge of it, so read Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. And you're asserting that sources that you created yourself, documenting your own work, are reliable and evidence of notability, so read Wikipedia:Independent sources, Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies, and Wikipedia:Notability.

    You've come to Wikipedia for the wrong reasons. This is not the place for what you are doing. Your own web site is the place for this. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, whose content must be verifiable, neutral, freely copyright licenced, and free from original research. Wikipedia:Alternative outlets exist for publishing creator-written documentation of the heretofore undocumented and the heretofore unknown. One of those outlets is your own WWW site, that you pay for. Wikipedia's remit covers existing human knowledge, not attempts by people to add to it by writing directly in the encyclopaedia. Such shortcuts around the proper process of publication, fact checking, peer review, acknowledgement, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge are not allowed. Uncle G (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's too edificatory. The page "Typical Objects for C++" is just a mention of a product. There is no conflict of interest at all. Has page something incorrect elements? If has - just change it. But do not delete - it'll be realization of conflict of interest. It's just a link. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 23:22, 13 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Delete Topic fails WP:N; has no coverage in independent reliable sources like computing magazines, academic journals of computer science, books from reputable publishers, etc. cab (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no coverage for it in Bible too. Who needs all this coverage? The TOC++ works well without any paper blague. It deserves the notability. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:22, 14 March 2009 (Moscow)
      • Who needs all this coverage? You, if you want to demonstrate that this topic meets Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines. It deserves the notability --- you appear to be the only one with this opinion. If others felt it were notable, they would have actually gone to the trouble of noting it by giving it coverage in reliable sources. cab (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • What are you talking about? I'm not wiki editor spec and don't know it at all. Wiki editor is Hebrew to me. If there are some errors in wiki code - just fix it. Don't make insinuations please. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 8:59, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
  • Speedy delete (G11) – User is clearly trying to promote his product here, which is what we call here spamming. MuZemike 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was the user's interventions here, not the article itself, that made it clear that this article was written for promotional purposes. That's why I feel speedy may not be appropriate. -- Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 01:10, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Promotion of what? Typical Objects for C++ is not a commercial product and never will be such. It's just a mention of possibility to implement some programming pattern. I'm not promouter but just software developer. Alexey_Morozov (talk) 9:10, 15 March 2009 (Moscow)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

KCIZ

[edit]
KCIZ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Unlicensed, non-notable 0.1-watt high-school radio station. Delete.  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 14:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete unlicensed high-school "station". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - only reference is its own website, and I don't find any independent sources that might indicate notability. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mora, Minnesota does have a radio station, KBEK, which broadcasts at 25,000 watts at 95.5 on the FM dial. At 0.1 watts, I'm not sure that the signal for the high school station would pick up more than a few blocks away. Note to the authors-- there is no article about Mora High School nor about the school district. Perhaps the text of this article can be part of the station's website, and a small paragraph could be written as part of a well-rounded article about MHS, including academics, school programs and Mustang sports. Mandsford (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW driven by the vigorous and unanimous consensus in defense of the subject's encyclopedic notability. The nominator's concerns on the article, while obviously sincere, overlook two key considerations: there is no timeline for tagged articles to be fixed and an Orphan Article tag does not mean the article is without value. Non-admin closure. Pastor Theo (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expense account

[edit]
Expense account (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This belongs in Wikitionary rather than Wikipedia as it is simply a definition of a phrase. It has multiple tags, has been tagged since June 2008 and has not been improved. Given that it is also a dead end and an orphan (tagged by me today) then I think this article adds no value to wikipedia and should be deleted. TimTay (talk) 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Nominator's remarks are a very fair criticism of the article as it is at the moment, but it would be possible to write a well-referenced, encyclopaedic article with this title. So don't bring it to AfD: fix it instead.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have expanded this article a bit, with information summarized from a couple IRS publications. This introduces a new problem, of course: the article lacks a worldwide perspective. But I think the article has successfully been expanded. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 17:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shane Powers

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

Non-notable person, considering in BLP1E. ApprenticeFan Messages Work 14:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Maiof

[edit]
Anton Maiof (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable musician. Web and news (archive) searches find no potential indicia of notability. Bongomatic 13:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sicketts

[edit]
Sicketts (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Despite the outcome of this AfD, can I suggest to the maintainers of this article that there is a huge question mark over the reliability of these sources - Rightly or wrongly, I forsee us being right back here again very soon if something more substantial is not found. Fritzpoll (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Airi & Meiri

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Airi & Meiri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I have tried CSD, I have tried Prod, so now its time for AfD. Why? This is not notable, not encyclopedic, completely lacking of reliable sources. Doesn't meet WP:MUSIC or WP:NOTE criteria. It is actually a CSD A7, but some editors disagree, without anything in way of reasons, except perhaps WP:ILIKEIT, but even that is speculative, as the edit summaries do not reveal a reason, nor does the talk page. Cerejota (talk) 04:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. No evidence that this duo satisfies WP:PORNBIO (they are just minor porn actresses) or other more general notability requirements. --DAJF (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - very little bio info and/or sources. Versus22 talk 06:43, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - silly PROD removal, obviously the pair are completely non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 08:24, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedied it but got a complaint so I prefer leaving this nomination to run it's 5 days. --Tone 14:16, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hold off on Speedy delete: This is a pair of verifiable Japanese celebrities with at least one hit song. I won't be able to work on it today, but last night I made a start with THIS list of their rankings in the past two years at one of the largest AV retailers in Japan. They finish in the top 50 both years, have two in the top 50 for several months, and are in second place for two months. Also their Ja-Wiki article shows an extensive list of works. I won't be able to do much work on the article today, but intend to research and improve it during the course of the AfD. Once I've put together what I can, I'll cast my !vote. But in the meantime, I don't believe this is a candidate for Speedy. Dekkappai (talk) 14:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - HUGE in Japan. Non-notable only in an America-centric sense. Proxy User (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 22:48, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted I mean, one of the sources is amazon.co.jp. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:13, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • redacted The tags are there for the very reason they were created, and the issues they cover have not been addressed: as A Man In Black noted, none of the lard added was from WP:RS. Contrary to his assertions, I alreade expressed above an openeness to even accept Japanese reliable sources if properly translated, as I am all for countering systemic bias. However, all that has been produced is blogs and catalogs, which all they do is establish existence of the subject, not its notability. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much correct. Mainstream sources in Japan would mean mainstream TV and magazines, not porn magazines. If we accepted porn magazines as mainstream per WP:PORNBIO, then WP:PORNBIO wouldn't be needed, as all actors and actresses in a magazine would be notable. This argument defies all common sense. --Cerejota (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mainstream is defined as a prevailing current or direction of activity or influence. Porn counts as mainstream, especially in Japan. Playboy counts in this country doesn't it? In Japan they advertise pornography on public billboards, sell the underwear of teenage girls in vending machines, and have legalized prostitution. Sex is treated differently there. Its as mainstream as anything else. The magazines seem well established. Don't know where to find their exact sales figures at though. Dream Focus 01:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These two are not being featured in the Japanese equivalents of Playboy or Penthhouse over even Hustler, which is what one would generally define as mainstream porn. English Wikipedia has an Anglo-American bias, that is reflected in policy, and the usage of mainstream in WP:PORNBIO. However, even if Japanese society is much more open to sexual matters than Anglo-American society, there is still a concept of mainsteam and not mainstream that is irrelevant as to pornography or morality, and has to do with notability. For example Kei Mizutani is no doubt a pornographic star, but also a mainstream, notable one, whose role in Weather woman and in the mainstreamization of AV in Japan in the 1990s is more than well sourced. In the case of the Anglo-American cultural melieu, Pamela Anderson comes to mind as a prime example. The subjects of this AfD don't even come close in notability. Sorry, but wikipedia is not a directory of anyone who has fucked in front of a video camera.
Again, find sources like Adult Video Newsor its Japanese equivalent (translated, of course) or some express coverage like "Kei Mizutani: Queen of Sex, Sumo, and Softcore" in She magazine, Vol.2, #13, p.3-11. and then we talk. But this here article is at best a lazy excuse for an article, at worse porn-cruft. --Cerejota (talk) 04:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing verifiable to say about these paticular actresses, other than listing their work (with helpful references to catalog sellers!). Dekkappai's breathless protests and blatant canvassing are kind of annoying, too. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:34, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Porn cruft, no proper reliable sources seem to be provided.--Sloane (talk) 22:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've done some work on the article. redacted THIS is the version of the article I am discussing now. Searches around the web show that Airi and Meiri are indeed major, popular idols in Japan, though the habit of Japanese media of taking down news articles and archives makes that difficult to prove. Nevertheless, what is in the article now shows that the twins made at least 10 magazine appearances, several original videos, and have been popular in video collections. They have had top-selling videos in the cosplay genre for the past two years. They have been interviewed and appeared in live performances in conjunction with their AV career. It needs to be kept in mind, as Dream Focus points out, merely by being major AV idols in Japan, their public profile is much higher than any comparable U.S. star-- including the very top U.S. porn models. The Australian Journal of Media & Culture writes, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred."[50] In addition to this, the twins have released popular music recordings, performed live, and even served as an inspiration on a network TV cartoon. I intend to do further work on the article, but just what is put together now is "notable" by any rational definition of the term. Dekkappai (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment redacted none of the sources you are using are reliable sources, and one in particular (Amazon.co.jp) was verified to not contain what you say it does. redacted if they are as notable as you claim, and if you know japanese, it should be trivial for you to find reliable sources stating this. However, after two days of drama and name calling you have not been able to do so. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 05:16, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then find the sources and put them in the article. Just saying so doesn't count.--Cerejota (talk) 05:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Amazon link that Man in Black was unable to verify shows best what is going on here: The link is to the Japanese Amazon. All he had to do is follow it. It's right there. Apparently he couldn't read it, so he searched US Amazon and found nothing. Now the link is called a "fraud." Second. I did not add that link, it was only put in to verify the CD. Third. My revision today added a back-up citation to the archived original official site of the CD. And this was reverted within minutes of an extensive re-write. redacted Dekkappai (talk) 05:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I was able to locate it. It's right here, and I followed it. Amazon.com is cool, though; you can browse their site in your language of choice, regardless of the nation/region you're using. So I just flipped it over to English, and I noticed that Amazon didn't carry the disc, had never carried the disc, and had the sort of incomplete listing associated with Amazon Marketplace selling (which is the equivalent of an eBay listing.) Since the Amazon link hardly established that the release was a major one (gonna go out on a limb and say Sexual Kiss Records ain't a major label) and as a private-seller-listed item the sparse factual claims weren't even reliable, I nuked the link. It was one of many poorly-referenced claims I removed, along with the poor references.
    Now. Can the bad faith accusations, especially when you aren't even bothering to ask people why they did something. The only things I'm hostile to are forum-shopping, grandstanding, and most of all bad sources. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 13:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted and removed excessive bolding for clarity I am all for keeping this article, as I have expressed multiple times, if WP:RS establishing notability are found. All of the edits you have done are random collections from blogs, catalogs, etc. Now, there is not always a need to read all sources if they come from domains that obviously betray their origin. Also, when using sources in languages other than English, you have to translate what they say or they can be removed on sight. I still remain open for this article to be kept, but it should be done in a manner that is in accordance to our content rules. redacted --Cerejota (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, see above: when using sources in languages other than English, you have to translate what they say. However, I can read domain names and use google translator. Its pretty easy to know that "Amazon.co.jp" (or Amazon.com, before I get called a racist again) is not a reliable source. --Cerejota (talk) 06:11, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I am still waiting for you to tell us in which notable magazines these have been covered?--Cerejota (talk) 06:19, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry I didn't mean magazine i meant source. I am not fluent in Japanese but I do know that www.coremagazine.co.jp is reliable and non trivial so is http://www.km-produce.com/ I am not sure about av channel and xcity perhaps someone with more knowledge in this field could help us. On the contrary since you do not speak Japanese either I assume you could not possibly know if they are unreliable. Valoem talk 07:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, i was just wondering where it says that a source must be translated or else it is removed? Also I heard that Amazon is not reliable in certain cases I was just wondering if you could direct me to which exact policy says amazon is not a reliable source. Valoem talk 06:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CITE what does it say about non-English sources? This:
"Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to other language sources of equal caliber. However, do use sources in other languages where appropriate. If quoting from a different language source, an English translation should be given with the original-language quote beside it." - "if quoting" should be pretty clear - doesn't say anything about always having to translate what a source says if not quoting. Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I just did a lot of research. First off Amazon can be use for certain things such as release dates and sales etc. It was their blogs and some reviews that was suggested to be unreliable. Secondly, citing sources in other language is allowed, here is what was said on WP:Citing sources -

Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, editors should use English-language sources in preference to sources in other languages, assuming the availability of an English-language source of equal quality, so that readers can easily verify that the source material has been used correctly. Where editors translate any direct quote, they should quote the relevant portion of the original, non-English text in a footnote or in the article. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.

It is okay to use foreign sources if no English equivalent exists and English citation are simply preferred not required. They ask for footnote translation only for quotes. I asked Dekkappai to translate regardless though.

Finally how do u expect Dekkappai to translate further if you continually remove his citations? redacted I am going to restore Dekkappai last edit as it was in good faith and not in violation of any policy. Valoem talk 06:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm a bit pedantic so: Actually, that isn't what it says, it does not ask for translation in a footnote - what it says is that IF an editor translates a direct quote (into English) from a non-English article, then they should include the original (non-English) quote in a footnote or the article. According to the section you have quoted, there is simply no requirement for a translation of any part of any source in any language in any article. Just curious - why should anyone be asked to provide translations in this particular case? Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

redacted Valoem talk 07:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the personal attacks. Focus on the content, not the editors. --Cerejota (talk) 08:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify who you are accusing of personal attacks. I certain hope you are not accusing me. Disagreeing with your opinion is not a personal attack. Valoem talk 12:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redacted --Cerejota (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Cerejota, you should not delete things just because you don't think they are perfect, and need work. No article is ever uploaded 100% complete. It is built and improved upon over time by different editors. People are working on it now, so kindly stop deleting things, and discuss what you disapprove of on the talk page. And as I have said on the talk page, if anyone doesn't like the reference tag of a movie that links to a commercial site that sells it, then you should erase the reference, not the entire movie listing. It was included just to prove the film existed, nothing more. If no one doubts the film exist, then you don't need a reference for it. Although commercial sites that sell things have always been linked to, with the cite web tag, to show where date of release and other information comes from. Dream Focus 09:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep for now. It's obvious editors are making good faith efforts to add sourcing which has been met with rather vigilant cross editing efforts. Perhaps this wouldn't feel so tense if it was spread over months but it's been occurring over days. Dekkappai, you may want to make use of the wayback machine (simply google search wayback machine) which archives webpages. This might help locate some of the deleted webpages you refer which in turn would provide the sources and notability being sought. This, as of yet, seems to inch above GNG although Music notability doesn't seem to apply. -- Banjeboi 11:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think anyone's saying sources are being added in bad faith. The sources just suck. Nearly every single source is either a fanpage devoted to specialist porn or a service offering to sell you pictures of these twins.
    You mention WP:GNG; can you point to a reference that isn't a fansite or trying to sell you naked pictures of these two? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 12:48, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If they are notable, it is not indicated by the terrible terrible sources people are trying to use in the article or by the 40 minutes I've just spent looking into them. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think an editor fluent in Japanese needs to put input in this AfD. I imagine its quite hard to prove or disprove notability without understanding Japanese. Cameron Scott do you know Japanese? Valoem talk 14:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree some input from people with fluency in Japanase would be welcome. However, this is ultimately irrelevant for two reasons: 1) any reliable source from Japan would be easy to spot using Google Translator and asking a few questions; 2) The onus to prove reliability and notability lies with the editor adding the material, not with those removing the material: I do not have to prove the subject is not notable, I simply say that notability has not been proven. Verifiability not truth means that notability in wikipedia != fame, but = coverage in reliable sources. So far, notability not proven as per WP:PORNBIO. There is indeed plenty of evidence that this article is not a hoax, as there exists a catalog of work, but existense of work, even extensive work, != notability. Wikipedia is not IMDB.--Cerejota (talk) 15:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem reading Japanese without a translator. Before adding my vote at the start of this AfD, and before Dekkappai started adding material to the article, I spent some time googling for sources that might indicate media coverage and hence notability. I was unable to dig up any coverage of this duo in the mainstream media, TV, or even in the tabloid press, which strongly suggests to me that they are nowhere near as "huge" in Japan as some editors above have suggested without anything to back up their claims. Dekkappai subsequently seems to have spent quite a bit of time scouring the web for media coverage, and the fact that he too was unable to find anything other than passing mentions in niche-market porn magazines or on fan sites seems to pretty much confirm that there is no notability here. --DAJF (talk) 01:25, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Knock it off. This is ridiculous, on both sides. I am going to liberally redact the personal attacks in this AFD. Should new ones crop up, the speaker will be dealt with harshly. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    CommentMan in Black-- This is not a personal attack, I am commenting on your editing at the article. You have twice removed a link to the Amazon listing for a CD, claiming it doesn't exist. With all due Civility, it exists, I've checked it several times since you have repeatedly removed it. HERE it is. With all due civility, do you know how to click on a link? Please do so. You will see the words, "ダブルファンタジア [Maxi] " That is "Double Fantasia [Maxi]", you will see, under that "あいり&めいり" that is "Airi and Meiri"... Your reversion of this is simply incomprehensible to me. More: you have changed the word "starring" to "appearing in" as "puffery" when, in fact, they are the stars of the videos. Following the links verifies this. You have removed a lengthy section reporting sales figures in an NPOV manner which show that the subjects have produced top-sellers for 2 years, and been in the #2 spot for months. You have whittled down a lengthy and sourced article into a stub with "citation needed" tags. redacted Dekkappai (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I twice removed it claiming that Amazon didn't carry the CD, and that it was a clear Amazon Marketplace listing. I said this in the edit summary, and I said this above. Amazon.co.jp can trivially be reconfigured to be an English-language site.
    Hey, where's the reliable source describing them as top-sellers or stars? Remember, reliable sources are independent of the subject; sites selling videos of them aren't that by a long shot. Sourced articles are sourced to independent publications, not catalog after catalog after catalog after catalog.
    As for the rest, speculate about the bad faith of other users somewhere else. Preferably somewhere far, far away from Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Add to the above: You've now just removed mention of their debut video as a non-notable fact. Need I say more? Dekkappai (talk)
    cited source doesn't claim that this is her first film - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:32, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unless you mean this edit, where I was a tad focused on the puffy "directed by noted AV director" bit and stomped on the "this is their first video," which I restored here. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:36, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Silence does not equal consent here. It only indicates that good faith, sourced edits are removed, and that pointing this fact out at the AfD is "redacted". Dekkappai (talk) 17:41, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Amazon marketplace is not Amazon. It proves as much notability as being listed on eBay. The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material (that's policy). Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. (that's policy too). Now how many times does this have to be repeated? yandman 17:51, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Amazon marketplace was not being used to prove notability. It was being used to verify release date and title. That has since been supported with another citation-- probably removed by now. If you could see the full article, you'd be able to determine that. Dekkappai (talk) 17:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the Sexual Kiss Records link is still in the article. The Amazon link's gone again, though, because it doesn't verify the release date and title. It's a not-closely-regulated user posting. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Man, a "Man" who is so squeamish has to "redact" others comments cannot be replied to. Have a nice day :) Dekkappai (talk) 18:08, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so let's forget Amazon. So which "multiple reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" are being used to indicate notability? Asahi Shimbun? Mainichi Shimbun? Looking at this and past versions of the article, I can't see any. yandman 08:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Erm, Cerejota, while I don't personally agree with CoM's statement above, there is nothing uncivil about it. Your unfriendly "retract your statement" on the other hand could hardly be interpreted as civil. I realize that English is not your native tongue, but please assume good faith and give people the benefit of the doubt, instead of mistakenly assuming ill will. An apology to CoM would be nice. --DAJF (talk) 08:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • He said I descriminated against other cultures, that is uncivil. I am tired of these allegations of racism and xenophobia, in particular because most of my editing in wikipedia is precisely WP:BIAS work. If you fail to see it, its okay, but his statement was uncivil in the extreme under the circumstances, and asking him to retract it is not uncivil.--Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could you provide some actual evidence that supports this "clear notability" in the form of links to non-trivial third-party websites in English or Japanese? As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, I have myself tried googling (in English and Japanese) without success, and Dekkappai appears to have spent a considerable amount of time trying to find reference sources without being able to dig up anything more than a handful of fansites. If you or anyone can actually offer evidence of notability, I will happily support keeping this article. --DAJF (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Right now as I see it this debate is going toward no consensus, keep in mind wikipedia is not a vote. Why is it when I respond to your concerns they go completely ignored. For those asking for a delete based on lack of notable sources i gave two sources, www.coremagazine.co.jp is reliable and non trivial so is http://www.km-produce.com/ I am not sure about av channel and xcity perhaps someone with more knowledge in this field could help us. Secondly I do not want to be accused of canvassing again but I am asking for permission to ask others familiar with Japanese Gravure idols for their input. Also AMIB, can you please expand why sources suck? Please cite wikipedia policy while your at it as Dekkappai cited a lot of sources. I see no policy that say inclusionist are the only ones that have to cite sources to prove a point. So if you could please go one by one and cite why every citation is no good that would help.
Sure. They are not sources independent of the subject. They are sources with a blatant, undisguised interest in selling you something. And not a one of these sources is commentary. All of them are simply of the form "Beautiful Sexy Twins! - Smarch 2007 - Directed by [some guy] - Watch these sexy twins fulfill your every fantasy!" That's not commentary, that's ad copy.
Core Magazine might be a reliable source. I'm skeptical, but Dekkappai could probably tell me more. Unfortunately, Core Magazine isn't being used to source any factual claims other than they appeared in Core Magazine.
I am most frustrated because this might be able to be a good article. But the defense of it is "Well, this is good enough and people are just discriminating against the topic because they don't like it." (See UnionSoap's comment above.) DreamFocus and Dekkappai have made the case that the specialist blurs into the mainstream, that there's something to say even about a pair of twins who make specialist porn. Nobody's put their money where their mouth is yet and offered any sources that say something. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Which brings me to my point. Notability is not the issue. The article needs to be revised by someone who speaks Japanese and can find sources in Japanese as they clearly exist. Valoem talk 18:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New info www.dmm.co.jp is also a reliable source. It has been cited in other gravure idols. See Fuko.

Also has anyone here compared the quality of this article to other articles about gravure idols? See Category:Japanese gravure idols. This article is written in the high quality and has the table showing a list of films. I see plenty of citations. If someone could find a few DVD reviews that could help. Valoem talk 15:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a reliable source for simple statements of fact about their products. It doesn't in any way establish notability; we're not mirroring DMM's catalog on this project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 17:11, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have to object to the characterization of my work on the article as "a considerable amount of time." I did not start this article. I regularly spend, at bare minimum, a week researching even the most notable subjects in this field before starting work on an article, and at least another week writing it before putting it on Wikipedia. On this article I spent less than a day total, and came up with THIS. That work was blanked twice within minutes of its posting, and after restoration it was quickly whittled away and bastardized (e.g., "starring" replaced with "appearing" in videos which contain their names in the title), I came to the conclusion that constructive work on this subect is being prevented, and continuing it would be a waste of time and effort, so I stopped work on it. At least one other editor who has experience in this field came to the same conclusion. From what I found in that very short search time, however, and from what I know of similar subjects, Airi & Meiri are highly likely to have had mainstream coverage, magazine, TV interviews, etc. in Japan. (Also, The Australian Journal of Media & Culture writes, "In addition to the influence of pornography on mainstream cinema, the line between pornography and family entertainment, such as daytime television, is blurred... there are women actors from pornographic videos who move into daytime television"[51] note this is in reference to those who go on to appear as regulars or have their own daytime shows, not just the occasional interview or article which establishes "notability".) We are here to establish notability, not write a Feature Article, and I firmly believe that what I found, and what is being removed from the article, establishes notability. Dekkappai (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article MARKEDLY IMPROVED since this discussion began, as both meeting the criteria of WP:PORNBIO and in curbing the enWiki's anglo-centric systemic bias. Let's WP:AGF folks, as using the relevent guidelines, it NOW passes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You consider WP:LARD improvement?--Cerejota (talk) 19:44, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no puffery (LARD) now in the article, I will politely disregard your question as being a non-argument. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:47, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is not a single reliable source that establishes notability in the entire article, as it stands today or in any previous version. WP:PORNBIO and WP:MUSIC require multiple sources. Could you please point me at what sources you consider establish notability? I am perhaps overlooking them. The article is a tub of lard as it stands.-- Cerejota (talk) 03:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First you were chiding me and calling something puffery (LARD) when that puffery no longer existed, so I responded. Now you, as a non-speaker/reader of Japanese are demanding from me, another non-speaker/reader of Japanese, to provide something that you would not be able to identify any more than I. And for myself (and you really might try do the same), I am assuming from what I have read that good faith efforts are being made to address your concerns. And here again, you insist on calling something puffery (LARD) when there is no longer any such in the article. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is still puffery. None of the sources added establish notability, only existence, and they where added after the AfD, in an attempt to lard or puff the article. I do agree that there are good faith efforts, the issue is that effort != results. I am not for wiping our asses with WP:NOTE simply because some wikipedians worked hard on it. You !vote is pure WP:EFFORT. That said, ignore my direct questions, and tell me if any source establishes notability.--Cerejota (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I will ignore is your very poor attitude. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Preceding user was temporarily blocked for incivility in this comment. — Gwalla | Talk 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I took the, ah, extreme measure of asking a native-Japanese speaker about the twins. He immediately knew who they were, knowing right away that Meiri had retired. Took him only a few minutes to add an audio interview, which has been added to external links. Dekkappai (talk) 22:53, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't an "interview" - it was the self-introduction that is standard at the beginning of all idol DVDs. I've removed the link, as it is both a copyvio and inappropriate as per WP:EL. If you can dig up a non-trivial third-party interview that featured on radio or TV, then I'll be more convinced. --DAJF (talk) 23:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, DAJF. I couldn't listen to it here. I took the additional extreme measure of assuming good faith. But of course it was removed as copyvio. How silly of me to forget that external sites must now share Wikipedia's refusal to recognize "fair use"! My bad. And no, I've long given up work on this article myself. It's become clear that the subject is being held to a higher standard than mere "notability". Dekkappai (talk)
We should probably hasten to add that as the subjects of interview in that DVD, they were merely appearing in it, not starring in it, as "starring" would constitute "puffery". Dekkappai (talk) 23:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, they weren't "merely appearing in it". It was a self-made introductory piece, which is why it has no value in this wikipedia article, and does not confirm notability. --DAJF (talk) 23:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep since I am weakly convinced that these girls are weakly notable. I mean, we have porn in this encyclopedia, might as well have this porn too. There's sources there, and not all of them in Japanese. I quote: "A long-awaited No.2 of the best version of 「super digital mosaic」 that clearly shows hair! anus! and in and out motions! is now here!" Drmies (talk) 22:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What source is that? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:44, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I have known about the twins for years and about their prominence in Japan. It can be difficult to establish "notability" (which has to always be put in quotes since it has no actual meaning in the real world) for subjects from other cultures and in unconventional fields. I worked on this article for a while but an ultramontanist philosophy has resulted in the complete removal of all that was added (Check the History). Like Dekkappai, I have also stopped working on the article. Now it is my OPINION that those who might weigh in on this AfD should be treated as adults. That is, they should be allowed to see all the work (good or bad in someone else's OPINION) and get to decide for themselves whether the sources used are "reliable" (another one of those words). For anyone to remove material because it isn't proper (in their OPINION) is treating people like children who must be protected from "wrong" views. You know, I think Wikipedia can survive having "bad sources" (and even evil ones which [gasp] might promote lesbian incest) around for the duration of an AfD. If those others, properly informed, decide, in their OPINION, that the sources are "weally, weally" bad, then so be it, delete. Und so, on the matter of "notability" and "reliability", it is my OPINION (and all the other views expressed here by everyone, whether they know it or not, are also just that, OPINIONS) that the subjects are "notable" and have been shown so by "reliable" sources. Because ... I think (that means it's my OPINION) that commercial sources, blogs, and fansites can be relied upon for useful information when used with caution. Some fansites provide the most complete and accurate information on the web in their subject areas (even better than Wikipedia!!!). And I believe that we are all intelligent enough to use such sites with caution (actually I am and you probably aren't but I'm supposed to be nice here). Further, one would have to be preternaturally naive not to realize that all those "reliable" mainstream sources that are always being clamoured for are also commercial enterprises and that commercial considerations (not to mention political and cultural biases) DO influence their content. And having several people check on facts when they all have the same bias does not give us TRUTH or (wait for it..) "reliability". Once again this is my OPINION, so now, if you wish, you can all flail away stating your own OPINIONS (that really gets annoying after a while, doesn't it?). Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 01:17, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to leave the article alone at AFD when I can improve it. Removing puffy, promotional statements and bad or inapplicable sources is improving it, and I'd do that whether or not it was at AFD. That people have mistaken these promotional statements repeated more or less verbatim as claims of notability and these various fansites and sales catalogs as reliable sources is unfortunate.
    This grandstanding of "I can improve this article, but I'm not going to in protest of notability in general and this AFD in particular" is tiresome. Improve the article with good sources and this all goes away. In the meantime, we don't have articles sourced to personal fansites (be they about lesbian incest porn, video games, or decorative topiary) or sales catalogs. If you are withdrawing in protest, then withdraw in protest and leave everyone else be.
    As for the repeated implication that someone is offended by the subject of this article, enough. The sources are bad, good ones would change minds. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 04:38, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • A story. Let's say someone makes Al Merry. He's a TV fisherman. The article lists the various fishing videos he's been in (sourced to a fishing video sales catalog), one time he appeared as a guest on a noted fishing show (sourced to the fishing show network's site), and describes his first fishing video (sourced to another fishing video sales catalog), as well as some claims about how he got into fishing (sourced to a fishing sales catalog that doesn't support half of these claims). At different points, an Amazon.com Marketplace link and a copyvio mp3 of an interview from the introduction were used as sources, but these were later removed. Someone said their friend has heard of Al Merry.
    Now. If I call that out as badly sourced, would you think I'm offended by fish? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 05:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Mr/Miss/Mrs Cerejota - Yes, that's what I'm saying about all of you - get the point?
Mr/Miss/Mrs Black - if you want to improve the article, add to it - when you remove material, you are doing what I said, elevating your OPINION above others. Remember, there are no rules in Wikipedia, only guidelines, those guidelines have to be interpreted and when you do that, you are giving your OPINION. Even the US Supreme Court doesn't pretend to omniscience - they give OPINIONS. Your are entitled to your OPINION but it is no better than anyone else's (and, of course, by definition, less than mine, whoever the "me" might be) but let others make their decisions on an AfD based on all the information even if it comes from sources that, in your OPINION, are less than ideal. Just bite your tongue when you feel these urges and assume others are smart enough to see through bad sources. After all, if the article really is bad, everyone will see that and it will get deleted in afew days. Unless, of course, t h e r e ' s a c o n s p i r a c y . . . . . (Lighten up, Dude, doesn't anyone around here ever smile?)
Mr/Miss/Mrs Black #2 - I'm not sure where you see the repeated implications of people being offended by the article, if one [gasp] can set off a whole fish story then you seriously need to invest in a sense of humour (no offense intended). And you still don't seem to have gotten my point - just because you say a source is bad doesn't mean it is - that's just your OPINION. It really doesn't matter how certain you are - (repeat after me) it's just your OPINION. So lets play nice and let others have their OPINIONS (mine, of course, always being superior to yours) :) Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 06:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you understand how Wikipedia works. "there are no rules in Wikipedia, only guidelines" : this would be a good place to start reading. "Your are entitled to your OPINION but it is no better than anyone else's" : this is pretty clear on that subject. Anyway, there being or not "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" listed at the end of the article is hardly a very subjective judgement. yandman 07:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your useful links, try reading them - "you can "ignore all rules": any policy, guideline, or other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia". I think I'm improving and I have given my rationale above for the necessity of sometimes ignoring the "rules" on "reliability". Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two points, neither of them serious.
One, dude, A MAN In Black. My gender is pretty clearly indicated, c'mon.
Yes, but I use a girl's name - am I? Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 17:16, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two, you found me out. I'm part of a neokabbalistic society devoted to maintaining the number of articles with four Is in the name. Keep it under your hat, though, okay? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 09:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Are these notable references? Does everyone agree they meet notable requirements now? There is now a reference link showing their appearance in Core Magazine, which appears to be a major publication. Does anyone still doubt they are notable based on that and other references added? I see most of the conversation seems to be about other things now, so lets focus on ending the AFD, if people agree all the references added within the past few days make it notable. Dream Focus 11:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Core Magazine is not actually a magazine; it's the publisher of a number of niche-market soft porn magazines. But in answer to your question, no, I don't agree that notability has been demonstrated yet, as not one single non-trivial third-party reference source has been forthcoming from any of the editors that have spouted on about how well known these twins supposedly are in Japan. I don't expect a Mainichi Shimbun in-depth interview about them, but not even a mention in Sponichi or any of the other tabloids or gossip magazines? No mention on late-night adult-oriented TV shows? Nothing. Which really shows how minor and off the radar screen they are/were in Japan. It is disappointing to see editors being duped into believing that a large number of truly minor reference sources somehow adds up to notability. Right from the start, the focus of this AfD has been on the lack of notability of the subject of this article, but despite all the huffing and puffing, no one has been able to actually provide any evidence of notability other than by repeatedly insisting that they are "clearly notable" or by using all-caps. --DAJF (talk) 11:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You don't consider Core Magazine to be notable then? They publish a lot of notable manga/hentai series. http://www.mangaupdates.com/publishers.html?id=38 has a list. Dream Focus 11:37, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No. Core Magazine isn't a magazine. It's a publisher of magazines. (See here, and here.) What you have there is a company that sells pornographic magazines listing the appearances of a particular pornographic model in one of their magazines. To put it in terms of American porn, you've cited Hustler.com's back-issue listing to find out that someone has appeared in a few issues of Hustler Asian Fever.
I'm disappointed in myself for not discovering this sooner. (edit conflict) And DJAF just pointed this out, better, above. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:59, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you read Wikipedia:Notability, you will see that significant coverage is a requirement. None of these links mention more than the names "Airi & Meiri" and the titles of some of their DVD releases. We can't even reliably verify that they are indeed twins. I know that someone said on the article's talk page that it shouldn't be necessary to provide a reference source for something that appears obvious, but that is not how things work on Wikipedia for biographies of living persons. --DAJF (talk) 12:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If you are going to emphysize significant coverage you should put the definition from the policy page which says "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive. I do feel that this is more than trivial. They seem to have been involved with a few high budget producions. See [52]. I can not see this video from where I am so if some else can confirm or deny this that would be helpful. Valoem talk 13:35, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a real shame you aren't able to see the video clip you posted a link to. I'm afraid to inform you that it is an embarrassingly low-budget YouTube-style effort. --DAJF (talk) 13:48, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well i there are a lot of other links I can't see any of them from where I am. Are these some kind of show? What is the audience level? If anyone could find an interview that would be helpful as well. Valoem talk 14:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So if there was an article that refered to someone as a man, but you couldn't find in any reviews that his gender was specifically mentioned, would that make you unable to state the obvious? Is there any reasonable doubt that they are twins, as opposed to two people that aren't twins but just happen to have the same height, age, and face, who by some strange random coincidence met up one day and decided to make porn together? If there was an article for a cartoon, but you couldn't find a single review that mentioned it as such, would you not be able to call it that, despite people able to look at it and obviously tell that? There is no possible reason to need a citation for every single fact. Anyway, the significant coverage is rather vague, since significant isn't clearly defined, it just a matter of opinion. Many here believe the coverage of them out there is signifant enough now, while others want more. All porn magazines have information about the girl/girls on the cover, so we have only to prove these magazines are notable for that to count. Is there any way to find out what the sales figures are? Or if a porn magazine has been in print for years, then it should be notable, since publishing companies wouldn't keep putting it out if it wasn't making money. Dream Focus 13:14, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I couldn't find a single reliable source that referred to his gender, I might suspect that my article subject isn't notable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A couple points for the closing admin: 1: We are supposed to believe here that repeated edits such as THIS, by the nominator, are purely in the interest of improving the article. (That English is not his/her native language may be an explanation, but it's not an excuse.) 2: The blanked version is filled with sourcing. No, it's not Julius Caesar-level sourcing, but-- reality check here-- this is an article on a couple of porn actresses, not major historical figures. That sourcing shows evidence of nearly a dozen magazine appearances, starring videos, live performances, online interviews, etc. This shows notability. 3: In looking through Wiki articles on subjects in US pop-culture, I've come across dozens which are totally unsourced. When I've asked about this odd difference between articles on Japanese and US pop-subjects, I've been told not to worry about the US one's lack of sourcing "Everyone knows its' notable, so no one would try to delete it." Think about that a bit: I mention Airi & Meiri to a native Japanese speaker and he immediately knows who they are, even knowing details of their career. Another editor with interest in the area has known them for years. (I admit I'd never heard of them myself, but I'm an old guy from the Naomi Tani generation-- hard for me to keep up with all the new stuff :) The point is, we accept that "everyone" knows US pop subjects, but are skeptical to the point of throwing out plenty of lesser-but-real sourcing-- apparently requiring university publication standards-- for a couple of porn actresses from a culture/country half a world away, and anyone with personal knowledge of the subjects is dismissed as "I like it / I know it". Looks an awful lot like a recipe for cultural myopia/bias at Wikipedia to me. Dekkappai (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dekkappai, you've mentioned this twice now, so I feel it necessary to pick you up on it. This Japanese native speaker you asked is not just some average Japanese guy off the street, but User:Hotaka, who, according to his user page, is employed in or closely connected with the Japanese underground film industry. It is therefore not at all suprising that he had heard of the twins. The second point I would like to pick you up on are these "online interviews" you mention. Could we have a link please? This is not the MP3 link that you added earlier is it? If so, that was not an interview, but a self-made self-promotional piece urging fans to buy their new CD. You did eventually get a chance to listen to it, I presume? --DAJF (talk) 14:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He's involved in the "underground" read: pink film industry, not AV, which are, basically very different things, though there is some overlap between the two. (In other words, the editor may have some knowledge of the topic-- does that ban him from comment on the topic in Wikipedia's eyes?) The interview? No, I didn't get a chance to listen to it. I assumed it was a good interview, and then I assumed good faith on your part that it was an AV interview. I thought I made that clear, haven't brought it up again, and don't why you're asking about that again. Dekkappai (talk) 17:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah... See, the heavy censorship makes it hard to keep track of what information is available, and what has been "redacted". Here's what my recent mention of interview was in reference to: "Airi and Meiri were the featured guests at XCity's night chat / talk show "Mihiro's Club". Eight downloadable videos of the appearance were offered to members of the site."Mihiro's Club Report: Vol.3" (in Japanese). Mihiro's Club. Retrieved 2009-03-09. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)" This[53] probably now missing citation makes reference to an exclusive contract with KMP. I don't know KMP's relationship with XCity, but it's an interview/talk show either way-- possibly third party. Dekkappai (talk) 18:19, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update are first I found a bunch of links here [54] if someone could look at those link that would be helpful I can not from work. Second a search of them indivdually has brought vast new resources has anyone tried this yet? I believe meiri full name is Hamutal Meiri. Here [55] Valoem talk 14:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking, Valoem, but no, I'm afraid Hamutal Meiri is quite a different person from our Meiri. :) Dekkappai (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'd also like to address this, "We're not biased, some of our best friends are 4'10" Japanese twin porn stars," complaint. This rings hollow when the nominator blanked out an extensive rewrite/re-sourcing twice within minutes of its posting-- as he had done to previous attempts to work on the article-- and yet this has not been condemned by the Delete !voters-- as far as I've seen-- I'm not following this discussion closely). This also casts strong doubts, in my mind, of the subsequent piece-meal stubbing-down and de-sourcing of that revision. It further makes the "Why don't you work on it?" challenges to appear more like "Whaddaya gonna do about it?" taunts from schoolyard bullies than actual appeals to work on the article, because work on the article has been systematically prevented. Dekkappai (talk) 17:13, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It may help to follow the discussion more closely before condemning everyone who disagrees with you as a schoolyard bully. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Thanks to heavy redaction, this AfD is almost impossible to follow. Entire arguments seem to have vanished into the ether. Looking back in the page history shows that some of the parts that were removed do not, on the face of it, appear to be offensive. Also, what is this doing on the Bands & Musicians AfD subpage? — Gwalla | Talk 17:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, there's been a very heavy hand at work in removing content from both the article and the discussion. I don't know what's still left at the article, but at one point it mentioned that this pair recorded J-pop music, had a hit single, and performed live... Dekkappai (talk) 17:42, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Content was rightly removed as unsourced WP:PUFFERY. Their sole CD single was released on a minor independent label and does not appear to have been a hit anywhere other than on their fan blogs. --DAJF (talk) 22:46, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'll have to check policy, but I'm inclined to cap off this AfD and relist it with a blank slate and a reminder to all parties to stay civil and avoid accusations of bad faith. — Gwalla | Talk 21:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They released a single on Sexual Kiss Records apparently. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:07, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, if I may be permitted to repeat "puffery" here, they actually did more than record a single. THIS link, once at the article, is to a DVD containing a dance to their original song-- indeed, a single. THIS link, presumably removed, lists three songs (the single recording not included) on their Double Fantasia. THIS link, removed, banned and salted, backs up that title, release date and the three songs. THIS mentions a performance of the new song by the "currently much-talked about twin unit" Airi & Meiri. THIS news item mentions that the duo's music was an influence on a Tokyo Broadcasting System anime. Again, this information was available at the article when I last worked on it. It was blanked along with much more, and, apparently, it's all been removed as "puffery". Dekkappai (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This and this are the same single, I think the evidence suggests that this is not primarily about their music or dancing, this has a dozen idols and A&M are not headlining, and this is a blog's speculation that a TBC anime ripped off A&M because they noticed that the chord progression was similar.
Like I said. They released a single. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:52, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
REDACTED!!! Dekkappai (talk) 00:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hilarious. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 00:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Re: "Puffery". We've all heard a thousand times that MIB and DAJF believe the article was rife with puffery-- was before the article was de-sourced, and stubbed. So why didn't they just mark it as such, and leave it for others to make their own opinions? Why, in fact, did they REMOVE this information from the article, and THEN mark the article as filled with "Puffery?" DAJF didn't even know which interview I was referring to above because it had been removed. I had forgotten for a moment what is going on here, and assumed everyone could still see it right at the article. Dekkappai (talk) 23:49, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, everybody here needs to tone down the snark immediately, because it is not helping. I would encourage everyone to read WP:CIVIL, paying particular attention to the parts on judgmental tone and taunting and baiting. The next comment to insult, belittle, accuse, malign, needle, or ascribe sinister or malicious motives to another editor, or is otherwise disruptive, will get a temp block. This goes for everyone. Do not assume that I am kidding. Play nice.

Some perspective may be in order here. This is a discussion of the merits of an article on a pair of porn model/actresses. Having this article around for a little longer will not ruin Wikipedia's reputation (it's just a drop in the bucket); conversely, if it's deleted, the Internet will not come crashing down around our ears. There is no reason for anyone to get this worked up. More dispassionate debate, less flaming, please. — Gwalla | Talk 02:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Have secondary sources that establish notability been found? As per WP:PORNBIO, WP:MUSIC, and/or WP:NOTE? If not, I do not understand why there is a discussion. As many have said, WP:LARDing with unreliable, or primary sources (or "sourcetards") only proves this article is not hoax, something no one has argued. We need sources that establish notability. I have scourged and scourged and scourged and scourged the interwebs and found nothing. So have, I presume, others. I really want to change my !vote, as we all know that WE CAN'T SPELL TWINCEST WITHOUT WINCEST! but am afraid their is no notability under the criteria we have.--Cerejota (talk) 06:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC) Preceding user was temporarily blocked for incivility in this comment — Gwalla | Talk 16:50, 12 March 2009 (UTC) A misunderstanding around the meaning of "sourcetard", I have refactored, and have been quickly unblocked.--Cerejota (talk) 22:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see some heated commentary on both sides and some tomfoolery and pointy activity happening on the article itself. This AFD is a fucking mess. Keep this on the basis that this AFD was completely poisoned, there is no deadline to improvement and AFD is not cleanup. The article needs cleanup, not deletion, despite being turned into WikiGaza. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Now I just want to point out a few things Cerejota. What I am saying it not a personal attack but a review of your behavior in this AfD which I found to be inappropriate. First you should be thankful that you were not warned for some of things you did while this article was under review. I am not suggesting that you nominated the article in bad faith, but certain things you did point to extreme bias against this article which is against WP Policy. You fabricated policies that were actually the opposite of the real policy in order to back your claim. You repeatly removed cite material bias on the false claim that English was the only citable source. Any editor that was unbias would have asked for a translation instead of a reverting to make the article look as unnotable as possible. Had you apologized for this behavior as an honest mistake then I would not have brought this up, one editor suggested that it was because English was not your first language, but based on your writing you seem very fluent and on par with any native speaker. You assumed bad faith against Dekkappai and repeatly warned him and reverted legitmate edits when he was trying to expand the article. Finally, you accused ChildofMidnight of personal attacks when he only disagreed with you. All of these things should be taken into account when reviewing this AfD. Valoem talk 12:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have totally misrepresented my views: I have no problem with Japanese language sources, and have said so repeatedly, in this AfD and in the talk page. I ask that you please retract this statement as it is false. Specifically I said: Sources in Japanese are okay as long as a translation is provided. I also said: These two are not being featured in the Japanese equivalents of Playboy or Penthhouse over even Hustler, which is what one would generally define as mainstream porn'. I think the building of strawmen and accusations of racism have gone overboard: do not misrepresent the view of editors.
I have a problem with using sources that do not establish notability to puff up the article and make it seem sourced. I have no bias against the article, and I would like you to tell me how asking for an AfD is against policy?--Cerejota (talk) 22:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My dear Cerejota, remember that even AFD is not a WP:BATTLEFIELD Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(If the ja.wiki version is put up for deletion, someone can point out that en.wiki has a version...) yandman 14:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The argument doesn't work this way because we are basing it off the fact that Japanese are more aware of their culture and can find many more source on ja google than we can. Valoem talk 15:08, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In case you hadn't checked, the Japanese article on Airi & Meiri has zero reference sources. --DAJF (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it does indeed contain numerous references, but are you happy with the fact that not one single non-trivial third-party reference has been provided yet? --DAJF (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment About the lack of sourcing in the Japanese article-- Japanese Wiki articles are very poorly sourced in general. Check the inline sourcing on the Japanese article for Akira Kurosawa. A lengthy article with two cites to one source. And compare the English article Dick Dastardly. Not one reference or even external link, good, mediocre, or bad. I've come across countless articles like this on US pop-subjects at English Wiki and been told not to worry about the lack of sourcing, "Everybody knows they're notable. No one would try to delete them." Well... could this possibly be true of other languages/cultures? Could they have subjects "everybody" knows, and would not delete? For possible notability of Airi & Meiri beyond a Japan/US fan base, I decided to try checking Korean sites, and found several mentions of the duo, such as this one, describing Meiri's retirement, the duo's dance and original composition, etc. No, this is not an Oxford Press biography, but things like this, along with-- just that we can find-- numerous magazine appearances, a talk show/interview (this one), musical recordings, public appearances, top-selling DVDs two years in a row, #2 spot for months... These are public figures. Dekkappai (talk) 17:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference with Dick Dastardly is that he could trivially be merged to Wacky Races if someone bothered to fool with the article and couldn't find any sources. (Nevermind that five seconds of looking gave me this, with at least two or three decent sources in the first three pages.) This is a very roundabout way of making the very tired "Well what about X" argument, and as always the reason is "Because either nobody has closely scrutinized X or because it's dissimilar from this subject]]."
    As for the link you found in Korean, again, it's a brief entry in somebody's blog. Nobody's saying the twins don't exist, or that they don't have an audience. People are saying that there's so little coverage of them that we have no hope of writing a biography; we can't even confirm the simplest facts about them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also WP:OTHERSTUFF. Man, the only reason I am citing all of these is because pretty much all the keeps have been without exception straight out of the examples sections of "Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions". That said, had Dick Dastarly showed up in "new pages" while I was on patrol, I would have CSD' it. Now I agree it should be merged and redirected to Wacky Races, however, that is not what we are discussing here.--Cerejota (talk) 22:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break 1

  • merge and redirect to Incest between twins in a new section dedicated to porno on the topic. Since we have been unable (and boy have we tried, I mean there are at least three japanese speakers here, one with strong fluency) to find any third party reliable sources that establish enough notability for an article. However, there is the "core magazine" source that establishes that the line of work of these women is twincest porn. The notability threshhold for inclusion in an existing article is much lower than that for their own article, and it has the advantage that if sources emerge eventually the article can be recreated: It might enrich the existing article on the topic to have a view on people who engage in this highly specialist line of work. Yes, this is changing my !vote, but closing admin should consider me delete unless the cosensus moves in the direction of my proposal.--Cerejota (talk) 22:54, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Robin: "Holy twins Batman, this discussion is certainly heated!" Batman: "Yes Robin, that is a clear indication of notability. If these twins were not notable, nobody would care enough to make a comment." Robin: "You mean that by making a comment you are indicating that the subject is notable, even if you state the opposite?". Batman: "Yes, absolutely Robin. If the subject were not notable, no one would care enough to comment; therefore, Airi & Meiri are clearly notable, with the proof being in the length and verbosity of the discussion." Robin: "Gee Batman, you are most certainly correct." Unionsoap (talk) 04:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fortunately, WP:BATMAN is not an inclusion criteria. :D--Cerejota (talk) 12:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 13:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keith Fagan

[edit]
Keith Fagan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable high school and collegiate athlete. Does not meet criteria of WP:GNG or WP:ATHLETE. Awards and accomplishments asserted do not establish notability. Bongomatic 13:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Woodlands, Singapore#Education. BJTalk 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woodlands primary school

[edit]
Woodlands primary school (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Imperat§ r(Talk) 13:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. BJTalk 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gibbs High School, Kumta

[edit]
Gibbs High School, Kumta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability established. Schools are not notable stand-alone, and the article is unreferenced and exclusive of original research. seicer | talk | contribs 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rather thought High Schools defaulted to "Notable" on Wikipedia? This will presumably be a school that goes up to the 10th Standard (see Education in India).—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was able to add a reference, though its only value is to show that the school exists.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Castle Wars chess

[edit]
Castle Wars chess (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Nominated for deletion, unreferenced, not notable, and aparantly was deleted once before. Bubba73 (talk), 04:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apparantly PRODed and deleted in Dec 2007, according to creator's talk page. Bubba73 (talk), 05:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I can find a couple of mentions on various chess variant websites, but none even close to the rules stated here. Then there is the fact that it is unsourced. Wperdue (talk) 04:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)wperdue[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara Care House

[edit]
Sahara Care House (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unencyclopedic, blatant advertising Binary TSO ??? 08:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

The result was Speedy Keep. The article was created in 2005, and the original version was not spam. The article requires cleanup, not deletion. utcursch | talk 14:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sahara India Pariwar

[edit]
Sahara India Pariwar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

unencyclopedic, spam-Binary TSO ???

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. MBisanz talk 07:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader)

[edit]
Abdul Zahir (Taliban leader) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not a notable individual. The only other references I can find are for a different Abdul Zahir, and the one used in this page mentions him only as a footnote; as in the article, it goes on about how the US believe they have killed Z, and then the Taliban claimed they missed and killed Y. I have no idea if a Taliban "group leader" would stand up to WP:BIO on his own, but in the absence of sources that mention him as more than an afterthought I'm going to say "no". Ironholds (talk) 10:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Redirect to Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. There are multiple news stories detailing this incident thus establishing a certain degree of notability. Antivenin 10:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For the incident, yes, not the individual. There isn't anything to merge; the incident is already covered in Osmani's article. Ironholds (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. Though I'm still inclined towards a redirect to Osmani's article. Antivenin 11:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    IMO a person as non-notable as this (absolutely no news sources to speak of) is unlikely to be a searched-for term, but you are welcome to your opinion. Ironholds (talk) 11:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't think this is worth merging into someone else's article. Zahir is only mentioned in those newspaper articles because the US was trying to kill someone else. I can't find any articles about his role as a Taliban commander or his life. Not notable per WP:ONEEVENT. Somno (talk) 10:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but probably merge and redirect somewhere. This person is definately worth including in wikipedia, but not necessarily as a whole article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Akhtar Mohammad Osmani. I agree with Ironholds that it is unlikely people will search for this, but just in case... There is nothing worth merging into that article though. A militant getting hit by a missile that was aimed at another militant would not make him very notable IMHO. Being a group leader doesn't help much either. What is a group leader anyway, something like a squad leader/platoon commander? Chamal talk 12:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I find "'Hekmatyar had more money than anyone, and he thought about the future,' said Haji Abdul Zahir, a mujhadeen fighter who is now in charge of Afghanistan's eastern border. 'He invested it in business, and he saved it'." in the Boston Globe in April 2002, that leads me to the 1999 story of his escape from prison aided by Hekmatyr as outlined by Worthington who says "Haji Abdul Zahir, a commander from a famous Afghan family, and his cellmate from Jalalabad, General Qassim – and on the night of March 2,1999, while the other guards slept, Hekmatullah Hekmati opened their cells and led them to a Land Cruiser parked outside,which had been adorned with the white flag of the Taliban." This leads me to assume that, like most Afghan commanders that we English-speaker Westerners may not have heard of, or recognise, he is notable and there are sources out there -- they just need to be collected. It's why we have stub templates. Sherurcij (speaker for the dead) 13:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - Could you provide that link, please? Also, is there proof that the mentions (in the one source provided in the article and the mention in the article you cite above) are both the same person? Could it be two people with the same name?BWH76 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - barring any further information that clearly indicates that this individual (and unquestioningly this individual as opposed to another with a similar transliterated name) did something of note, there is no reason at all for this article. This article has 1 source that mentions the article subject in +/- 3 sentences. In those sentences, the subject's role is not clear. We cannot (and do not) assume notability of an individual barring sources or any specific information. BWH76 (talk) 23:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

James W. Borkowski

[edit]
James W. Borkowski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Campaign advertisement for someone running for local sheriff. I don't believe being a county judge and running for sheriff make someone automatically notable, and I've tried to find multiple non-trivial mentions of Borkowski in independent, reliable sources to meet the notability criteria but have been unable to find anything worthwhile. Fails WP:NOTABILITY and WP:POLITICIAN. Somno (talk) 09:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges.

However I see no evidence of significant press coverage. Heck, I can't even see moderate press coverage. 1, 2, 3 are all local news articles. Antivenin 10:58, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're emphasising the wrong part of the quote from WP:POLITICIAN; should be: "People who have held international, national or first-level sub-national political office, including members of a legislature and judges." Local county judges are not international, national, or first level sub-national. Somno (talk) 11:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah. I see what you're talking about. I'm learning something new everyday. =) Thanks for the help. Antivenin 11:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. County judge is "level 2 sub-national" according to Table of administrative country subdivisions by country. Somno (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a county judge. This is a town judge, so it would be third level.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, per author's request (CSD G7).--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Port Kaituma airstrip shootings

[edit]
Port Kaituma airstrip shootings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is culled directly from Jonestown#The Port Kaituma airstrip shootings and is not changed in the least. It begins with no context whatsoever given of what this event consisted, and ends just as abruptly. It should deleted as content that exists in its entirety in an article that gives context and background. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, content is already covered in Jonestown. Article was not spun out correctly (no attribution under GFDL and the section in Jonestown was not summarised). Jonestown is a big article and summarising might be appropriate for certain sections, but there should be discussion on the talk page about which sections to spin out and the content should be split properly. Somno (talk) 10:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - ah. yes sorry. i made this, planning to spin it out and ran out of time and forgot it. give me a shot. Important, definitely notable event, and i think events should be kept separate from location articles. please give me a weekSpencerk (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I actually wrote much of the text in the current Jonestown article and this should absolutely not be broken out into a separate sub-article. The shootings of Ryan were most certainly part of the event that night. Of all thing things in the article, I have no idea what would possibly drive the idea of spinning off the shootings of the Ryan party from the rest of the groups' events that afternoon. It would be like writing a separate article on the actual drinking of poison separate from the one recounting Jones' Pavilion address. It makes no sense. In fact, the Ryan party killers came back to the Pavilion during the middle of the speech, and this was perhaps THE driving force behind the quelling of dissent, if you read the Jonestown article, after they knew they had already killed the Congressman and others. It was repeatedly the reason Jones gave why they had to take their own lives, because "others" had purportedly decided they had to kill the Ryan party, so the Temple had to kill themselves before troops "parachuted" in on them, tortured them and enslaved their children.Mosedschurte (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • ok, delete - understand. Spencerk (talk) 17:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleted per Spencerk's request. Nyttend (talk) 13:19, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pío Andrade, Jr.

[edit]
Pío Andrade, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Notability in question. Strongest claim to fame was a non-notable book which was earlier deleted here Twelve hits on Philippine Google search, some of which are his own columns and Wiki mirrors. Google Scholar search doesn't yield good results either. Lenticel (talk) 08:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I checked him out on Google. He seems to be a minor figure in the Philippines' intellectual community. However his main claim to fame in the article is a self-published book whose article was just deleted (I started the AfD on that.) Unless secondary sources have discussed some other of his contributions or his life then there is not enough for an article. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:04, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to 9 Queens. MBisanz talk 07:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jean L. Hoffman

[edit]
Jean L. Hoffman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I do not see that person as notable enough to be in an encyclopedia. The sources cited seem to be local newspapers covering the life of the town, not mainstream media. If I understand correctly it is just a person who organises chess events in her neighbourhood. SyG (talk) 08:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Something Sweet Inc.

[edit]
Something Sweet Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Vanity page for non-notable business. —Chowbok ☠ 07:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Indore#Education. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advanced academy of indore

[edit]
Advanced academy of indore (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Sounds like an ad to the school, article doesn't show notability. Guy0307 (talk) 06:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The reason I'm emphasising redirect rather than deletion is because then, an encyclopaedic article on this topic could be written without having to jump through bureaucratic hoops like DRV. A sourced, well-researched article on the Advanced Academy of Indore strikes me as the kind of thing Wikipedia would want to include without such obstacles.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 14:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that was the case we'd have no need to delete the article, if the subject is notable there is no grounds for deletion, just for a rewrite. But such a thing could never happen as it doesn't seem to be discussed in any sources except us and mirrors, as someone says. Is it known under a slightly different name? If an encyclopedic article can be made, we can leave it as is until we write it (like tomorrow) or stick some reliable sources in it. S Marshall, I can see your reasoning but if an article can be made, we can make it now, if any of us can be bothered, and if this is remotely notable under some variation of the name. Sticky Parkin 15:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that "If an article can be made, we can make it now". There aren't sources online at the moment (or at least, none that google can find). But there may be lemon-soaked paper napkins sources in future.  :) Or perhaps on paper, that someone more local to Indore could find.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:44, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that racist lol? Ah ok I get your point. Maybe in the distant future. I managed to vaguely find this ref'ed outside wiki [62] but it doesn't seem to be notable. Sticky Parkin 15:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep in accordance with WP:SNOW. Acalamari 20:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Hill (performer)

[edit]
Murray Hill (performer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails to comply to WP:ENTERTAINER. No notability whatsoever. I can't even find this person with a normal Google search, let alone a Google News search. I move that this article be deleted. Article is poorly written as well, and there are only 3 citations. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Try a Google search like ("murray hill" "drag king"), and you will find some references both on Google web and Google News. Furthermore, the fact that this article has only three citations is mitigated by the fact that one of those citations is a profile in the New York Times which is almost entirely about this person. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Drag kings" don't seem very note-worthy or relevant to anything. -Axmann8 (Talk) 07:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding, right? Drag kings certainly can be notable as much as drag queens or any other character or personae if they meet WP:GNG. -- Banjeboi 12:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I move that your vote be discounted on the grounds that there is a conflict of interest. You are very close friends with the author, are you not? You have an image of yourself on your profile taken by the author of the article. -Axmann8 (Talk) 07:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A conflict of interest doesn't exclude someone from the debate. Even Mr. Hill himself could contribute if he used Wikipedia policy to make his case. In this case DGG is citing the reason Metropolitan90 provided, so it's all above board. - Mgm|(talk) 11:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, It's not. WP:ENTERTAINER required the person to be noted by multiple outlets. -Axmann8 (Talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that anywhere in WP:ENTERTAINER. In any case, as far as I'm concerned, the New York Times profile would be sufficient coverage for Hill to meet the general notability guidelines for Wikipedia, even if it was the only reliable source. And it's not the only reliable source out there: see e.g. [63]. Scog (talk) 08:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator you don't get to !vote here; it's assumed you want the article you nominated for deletion to be deleted...ColdmachineTalk 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete per WP:BIO, with specific reference to WP:ENTERTAINER - coverage should be in multiple sources, acc. to general notability guidelines and entertainers are expected to have "made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment." My !vote is only weak, however on the basis that AfD is not for cleanup and that if this individual really is notable then sources should be found to indicate as much and the article kept. If that was done while the AfD is in progress I'd move my vote to strong keep. ColdmachineTalk 08:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close. Appears to be joke AfD. --KP Botany (talk) 08:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I can assure you it is not a joke AfD, as I am the nominator, and I'm telling you it's not. It's completely non-notable. The article is a joke, not the request to delete it. -Axmann8 (Talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

McGangBang

[edit]
McGangBang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NN neologism. Of all the sources one barely passes none pass WP:RS Toddst1 (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment:Any meme is a neologism, and this one is particularly well covered in several forms of media. This seems to be an overreaction. The article firmly establishes the notability of this phenomenon. Whoppavirgin (talk) 05:54, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to World of Warcraft. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

World of Warcraft Professions

[edit]
World of Warcraft Professions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete per WP:NOTGUIDE: Consists mainly of gameguide content with no basis in reality. Also uses mainly one game-guide reference. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete: primary criterion A7, secondary criterion G11. —C.Fred (talk) 04:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Real Soft

[edit]
Real Soft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

looks like a unclassfiable topic Rabbit67890 (talk) 04:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Speedy deleted this page as a copyvio. Personally, I think the group could be worthy of a page, but not when it is borderline G12-blatant advertising and copies whole sections word-per-word from another source (that isn't a wiki clone.)---I'm Spartacus! NO! I'm Spartacus! 04:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

American College of Pediatricians

[edit]
American College of Pediatricians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The nominated article advertised a group, is poorly sourced, and is poorly sourced due in no small part to the fact that the 'college' in question is not notible. This article promotes a specific biased political view and seems impossible to rewrite such as to make it encyclopedic. SpeedyLA (talk) 03:53, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • A notice has been placed at WT:LGBT notifying members of Wikiproject LGBT Studies of this discussion. Aleta Sing 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think "college" in this context means an educational institution, but rather something akin to "association". Aleta Sing 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps it's because it's nearly bedtime, but I don't see any POV; it just seems to report this group's POV in contrast to the POV of another group. That being said, it doesn't appear notable; thanks to Aleta for pointing this out. Nyttend (talk) 04:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Wikipedia is not censored. While I agree the current version of the article is poorly sourced and draws far too much on the group's own Web site, these problems can be fixed. And with 37 hits on Google news [66] the group is notable. BRMo (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable. User:BRMo's GNews link links to a search for the American College of Pediatrics, which isn't the same thing as this American College of Pediatricians. This "think tank" isn't an education institution.. it's not a real "college" but a 1-employee front for right wing causes against abortion and gay rights. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ echo 04:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Web speed dating

[edit]
Web speed dating (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

As the article is currently written, it is only a dictionary definition. After a little Google searching, this practice does not seem to have enough coverage to be considered prevalent enough or notable enough to merit an aricle at this time. Perhaps a redirect to and inclusion in Online dating service would be appropriate. Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. This was my first entry but have been a long time user of Wikipedia and love it. I now know I clearly should have been in the sandbox figuring how this works. I admit I was trying a couple of things and linked to a test page to see how it worked. I was a little stunned at the speed of the notice of it. I thought I had a day or so, but the assumption was my issue. Nick was kind enough to suggest that I post this directly for your consideration.

I came back yesterday today to revise the original stake in the ground post to a more appropriate entry and do some further research to tie the term into the social ramifications of such. I did a brief revision and would like to continue to extend if that is acceptable. I believe this ties in directly to many sociological structures and will have produce a swift and significant effect on such an age old practice and participants. To me that makes it relevant and worth exploring and in the end will hopefully produce important considerations for others.

What this means both socially and technically as a part of the overall evolution and integration of the web remains to be seen. Still, there are many evolutions going on that produce trends. Often, starting at the beginning to delineate such a trend when the technical barriers just begin to drop often produces the greatest results.

Let me know if this is still lacking for a starting point or if something else needs to be changed. And feel encouraged to suggest how I might make this topic align with the way of Wikipedia. It is merely my first attempt and I hope to have many more as a part of my own evolution as I am swept along by tech.

Again, I apologize for the clumsy nature of my introduction to being a contributor. I should have known better. I look forward to proving the worth of this topic.

Hope this approach is acceptable.

Thanks,

Madkin (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - OK. I didn't see a surrender mark so I will pick delete as my tag. I'm new and clearly this is off the mark. I would be happy to delete it myself or let it roll off. Just don't want to step on my own foot again. I will think about moving it to one of the suggested larger categories after I learn a bit more. Thanks and sorry again for the disruption, Madkin (talk) 00:59, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to ABBA unreleased songs. While it is an implausible search term the article has to be kept for history. BJTalk 22:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dream World (ABBA song)

[edit]
Dream World (ABBA song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Promo only single in very limited territories. Article should be deleted as the information can easily be assimilated into the ABBA unreleased songs article Paul75 (talk) 03:36, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's no reason to vote like you did. Please try and stay on topic rather than making attacks. Grsz11 13:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fine then, I will change my wording! Paul75 (talk) 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra (song)

[edit]
Cassandra (song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. B-side to a single only. Article claims it was a single in Yugoslavia although with no reference to back up claim. Paul75 (talk) 03:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, per nominating user paul75's obvious prejudice toward the band ABBA, based on the fact that he nominated 4 ABBA-related articles for deletion consecutively. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to The Day Before You Came, as is I believe standard practice for B-sides. JulesH (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Although I would have prefered if Our Last Summer and When I Kissed the Teacher were not brought to AfD, and am pleased that the former was kept, The Piper was appropriately deleted, and all the ABBA songs that I am aware of that Paul75 brought to AfD did have issues appropriate for AfD discussion. So I do not think prejudice is an issue here. At first glance, I had my doubts about this song's notability. I think the key is the unsourced statement in the article that it was released as an A-side in Yugoslovia. If that is true, and the song had reasonable chart performance there, then this article ought to be kept. Otherwise, it is probably appropriate to merge with The Day Before You Came, per JulesH. Does anyone know how to confirm Yugoslovia chart performance? Rlendog (talk) 02:58, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you Rlendog. Calling me prejudiced is entirely unwarranted, I am only acting in a way appropriate to Wikipedia guidelines. I am actually a huge ABBA fan, one look at my record collection would prove that. What I don't like is Wikipedia being used as a fansite. I dislike obsession in any form, and I don't believe Wikipedia is the place for detailed articles on every song ABBA ever recorded. ABBA fansites are for that. Singles, go into as much detail as you like, but there is absolutely no place on Wikipedia for seperate articles on promo, demo or album tracks, no matter who recorded them. Paul75 (talk) 03:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Just because editors are on different sides of the inclusionist/deletionist spectrum doesn't mean that our motives are bad. That said, I do hope you meant to qualify your statement that "there is absolutely no place on Wikipedia for seperate articles on...album tracks, no matter who recorded them" at least to some extent. After all, some album tracks are extremely notable, even by the general Wikipedia notability standard without even needing the special music standards. I would hate to think that an AfD for album tracks like A Day in the Life or Blowin' in the WindSympathy for the Devil is coming any time soon. Rlendog (talk) 20:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because for it to work some one needs to type in cassandra-open brackets-song(in lower case)-closed brackets. So, the plausibility of someone typing all of that, perfectly, is very slim.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 10:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is the same issue for any disambiguation title. That is why we have dab pages, and this song shows up on the Cassandra (disambiguation) page. Are you suggesting deleting all terms with dabs as implausable search terms? Rlendog (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, experienced Wikipedians would know to look under "title (song)" for songs where they know some ambiguity exists in the title.Rlendog (talk) 13:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You Owe Me One

[edit]
You Owe Me One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. B-side to a single only. Paul75 (talk) 03:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:18, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two for the Price of One

[edit]
Two for the Price of One (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability per WP:MUSIC. Album track only, never released as a single in any market. Paul75 (talk) 03:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Fritzpoll (talk) 08:18, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zach Putnam

[edit]
Zach Putnam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable minor league baseball player that has no claim of notability. Google news search returns just 8 hits, most of which are published by Univ of Michigan. Can be recreated when he plays at a level that previous consensus has accepted as substantial for notability or he otherwise gains notability. Grsz11 03:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Although not very notable, a standard Google search provides 665,000 results, a good deal of which are about this baseball player. It looks like a person spent a great deal of time on this article, so I see no harm in keeping it. It's not like it's fancruft or anything like that. -Axmann8 (Talk) 05:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also, as you can see, I've voted to delete an article about a "drag king". If such an article should exist, then this article should as well.-Axmann8 (Talk) 07:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You might also wish to see WP:POINT. :-) Outsider80 (talk) 10:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not only is your WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument invalid, it's contradictory...you voted delete on the other article. Grsz11 13:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 01:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Cabal

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Alan Cabal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete Not notable per WP:BIO or WP:CREATIVE. Author only has mentions in blog articles or in articles that are not solely about him. Just because one has a lot of publications does not make those publications notable. The article has been deleted before for these faults [69] and the decision was upheld at deletion review.[70] Nothing has changed in this version of the article except that even more non notable sources are cited. Ave Caesar (talk) 02:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep the most recent decision was the no-consensus 2 months ago. I said weak keep at the time & I still do. He's a notable columnist for an important alternative paper, with notable articles, though the formal sources are a little weak. I'm not really happy with using strict criteria to rule out people from fields where the sources are going to be somewhat informal. DGG (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These references are really not overwhelming. One long, rambling car trip in the New York Post, a blog about his band that doesn't mention him, a brief mention (just one paragraph, no in-depth discussion) in the Wyman Holocaust denial report, another passing mention in a letter by Zundel. The strongest of all these refs is that article on the Institute for Historical Review site--but I have doubts about their independence. In sum, it seems to me that we have a person really notable for one event (besides a car trip to the Jersey shore), and that one event does not appear to be covered in reliable sources in an in-depth manner. Now, if they guy is such a notable columnist, why can't we find reliable sources that discuss him and his work? Drmies (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I've tried to think fairly about this. Perhaps i've failed. But as a journalist, he's received no independent coverage at all. There are in fact no independent sources about him (the car trip with his pal in a free weekly is about it). Of no encyclopedic relevance. If his comments on the holocaust denier zundel are relevant, they already have a home in the zundel article.Bali ultimate (talk) 05:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Still no significant independent coverage, and little claim to notability.--Michig (talk) 07:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing has improved since the last AfD, except for the blocking of some abusive accounts. None of the improvements establish notability. Fails WP:BIO of any shade. Verbal chat 07:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO. This is an article which has clearly had its chance and simply can't be brought up to standard. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:BIO and WP:N. As I said previously, nothing has been written about him, which is what's required by Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Nothing has been done to establish notability since the last debate. Themfromspace (talk) 15:37, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible canvassing problem: IkipSmith_JonesXasodfuihJmundoLucian_SundayA_NobodyMichaelQSchmidtFlyingToaster. The contents of the message appears neutral, but the list of editors appears to have been selected with a motive.01:52, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yet another sock. Already blocked. If you're willing Kww, why not delete your comment on this (nothing to be done about it now) and if you agree, you can delete my response at the same time per RBI. Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can't unring a bell. Everyone will still get the orange bar, and still dig through their messages to figure out why.—Kww(talk) 02:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the article be deleted as it stands and given the general reliability of Wikipedia as a source. If you have any questions or issues regarding my feelings on this matter, feel free to contact me at [email protected].

Thank you,

Alan Cabal —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.146.16.183 (talk) 07:55, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW MBisanz talk 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing

[edit]
2009 Baghdad police recruitment centre bombing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:NOTNEWS §hawnpoo 02:57, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep It takes a certain about of judgment to tell when something is reasonably sure to be part of the historic record, and the use of that judgement tells me at least that this will be--the historic record is quite detailed, after all--all terrorist attacks of this sort will be part. An approach to the judgment can be attempted by seeing the type of coverage of the more sober news sources, the ones conventionally called "journals of record" DGG (talk) 08:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep — covered by reliable sources, killed many people (suicide attacks aren't that common in Iraq). The news sources seem to indicate that it shows a change of tactics of suicide bombers (towards police recruitment centres etc). That is notable, because this one event had other implications. Jolly Ω Janner 16:21, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Completely not true. Sorry, no other way to put it. Suicide bombings have been extremely common in Iraq; so have suicide bombings of police recruitment centers: see List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because the people at In the News believed it was worthy does not mean they are right. Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. WP:NOTNEWS. This is news. The wikinews article is a copy of this one (this one was made first though, to be fair). Also, this just a single suicide bombing, and not even a particularly devastating one at that! See List of suicide bombings in Iraq since 2003 for a list of the HUNDREDS of others - with plenty that have received more coverage, have had far more wideranging consequences, etc. And if this kept, could someone who's not a lazy turd (that's me) add this to the Major Iraq bombings template? Bsimmons666 (talk) 23:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A terrorist attack that killed 28 people is most certainly notable, whether they are common in that particular country or not. We should not discriminate against an act of mass murder because there are other acts of mass murder around! -- Necrothesp (talk) 23:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Does every small (indecisive) skirmish of a war deserve a page? Bsimmons666 (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently yes. I don't have a problem with any of those articles either. - BanyanTree 03:46, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment From other editors' previous experience, it's very hard to get articles which are displayed in the 'In the news' section of the front page deleted. It might be best to close this AfD and try again in a few weeks when this is out of the news and its significance can be better assessed. It would be helpful if the nomination also explained why this violates the guideline - single word nominations are bad form as they don't provide other editors with guidance. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep This article is featured on the front page of Wikipedia. It's unbelievably notable. ScienceApe (talk) 03:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is certainly a notable article because it is in the news. MathCool10 Sign here! 03:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep – A strict application of WP:NOT#NEWS might suggest that deletion is the correct outcome, especially since many (not all) of the arguments to keep are rooted in one or more of the "arguments to avoid in deletion discussions", including WP:BIGNUMBER, WP:ITSNOTABLE (assertion != demonstration), and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The argument to "delete", on the other hand, seems more policy-based: "Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. ... Routine news coverage ... [is] not sufficient basis for an article."
    Many of the arguments to keep offered thus far focus on the very real double-standard at work. The "historical notability" of a terrorist attack that claimed 28 lives on American, Australian, or British soil would undoubtedly not be in question. However, I believe that this bias stems primarily from the fact that deadly suicide bombings are, sadly, not uncommon in Iraq. Moreover, reliable sources (particularly English-language ones) do tend to give disproportionate attention to events in the Anglosphere.
    For me the key question is whether coverage of this bombing constitutes "routine news coverage". In my opinion, the answer is "no". Reports of results of minor sports games, announcements of local cultural events, and "Today in Iraq"-type daily reports of violence in Iraq are examples of routine news coverage. However, I do not think that we should consider international coverage of an event—as the main subject of news articles (in the BBC, The New York Times, and elsewhere) rather than as a note in one paragraph—to be routine coverage. –Black Falcon (Talk) 00:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 00:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rhetoric Society of America

[edit]
Rhetoric Society of America (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This does not assert its notification. It does not have a wide exposure, most Google hits containing only what it is and not how it is notable. Riotrocket8676 You gotta problem with that? 02:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Really? 2.1 linear feet for 27 years of archives? Gotta wonder. Bongomatic 13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's some sources which are a bit more than trivial: [71], [72], [73], [74], [75]. The Society may not appear as the subject of a cover story in The Economist or The New York Times, but it clearly is an established scholarly organization which merits mentions from prominent universities, their magazines, websites, academics, etc. Majoreditor (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first isn't independant, the second is trivial, the third isn't independant, the fourth is trivial, and the fifth is trivial. Furthermore, none of these actually involve discussion about the society. Themfromspace (talk) 23:33, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Kachold

[edit]
Lisa Kachold (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Entirely non-notable person, in no way meets notability or biography minimum requirements. Don't be fooled by the long list of references in this article. They seem to all fit into two categories: 1) References that do not mention this person at all and 2) Curriculum Vitae's created by this person themselves, usually hosted on websites of organizations she belongs to. There appears to be zero independent sources about this person. Checking Google gives nothing but CVs and resumes and one sentance mentions, things like attended such-and-such a confernece, etc. Google News search turns up squadoosh as well. I see nothing here that meets Wikipedia's standards for inclusion Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:51, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Does not meet Speedy Delete. Does not meet WP:BIO. (Suspected Scientology based) IP DoS flooding to the hosting servers upon which Obnosis.com is served, as well as flooding of IP of the originating article editor, interferes with innocent users. Page, relocated to User:Lisa Kachold as appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 05:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:Note is served via existing precedence of other WP:BIO pages of women, pages of Anonymous_(Group), and biographies in general showing gender history. If page was renamed/moved or changed to obnosis.com the subject would also meet the notable parameters for historical events in Internet history. On this Deletion discussion, nominator Jayron32 fails state HOW contribution Lisa Kachold fails to meet notability or biography, rather just simply stating an opinion.

Here's what WP:BIO says: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article.

  • The person has received a notable award or honor, or has been often nominated for them.
  • The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in his or her specific field.

Scientists, academics, economists, professors, authors, editors, journalists, filmmakers, photographers, artists, architects, engineers, and other creative professionals:

  • The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.
  • The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory or technique.
  • The person has created, or played a major role in co-creating, a significant or well-known work, or collective body of work, that has been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film, or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews.
  • The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries.

Wikipedia has long been critiqued for Exclusionism (especially after IRC chat group consensus or group judgements) outside of Wikipedia policy. Per Alternatives to deletion the tag: {{verify}} to flag (for lack of verifiability) would certainly precede any deletion nomination. The domain name alone "obnosis.com" is therefore notable in context with the professionalism and history of gender issues for the century in the information technology field.

Citing Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Sources is most appropriate here.

WP:Reliable Sources states:

Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context.

  • Moderated discussion lists for veracity of technical experience and notability working in open source or technical roles is an established 3rd party precedent, while not as sole reliable source. These include PLUG HackFests, SunManagers, WebSphere, FreeGeek, PPTP, Nmap lists.
  • Additional reliable sources of wiki's for Freegeek, and Obnosis.com are therefore also acceptable, in context as 3rd party reliable sources.
  • Linux and Internet News editors also will be happy to read through these Wikipedia pages to clearly see the notability of the gender technical firsts, obnosis.com domain word hack and defense across 15 years (for one of the .Com's registered in 1996) between Scientology and CUD, later Anonymous Group. Any of five weekly editorial sites would be happy to pick up this story, and those sources WILL be inclusive as primary (though that is possibly not in going to happen in 3 days), however, the SVN and Trixbox free and open source contribution references for the RhinoEquipment Corporation work and PCMCIA device contribution can certainly be developed for notable contribution with Lisa Kachold's name, and additional primary verifiable sources clearly be obtained before 5 days. It is questionable that those sources will be recognized, as the sources for the "obnosis" page met primary Reliability, also as demonstrated via the original content[1], yet that page was nominated for deletion, sent to Wiktionary, where it was included for use both as an english verb and a Scientology word, until pick pick pick, users or editors edit away all content, but positive Scientology references, and Usenet (not meeting Reliable Source standards) references to display an inaccurate [[76]] Scientology censored version and revision history, that includes none of the durably archived links and did (until I complained recently contained a great many non-durably archived and news links to favorably promote Scientology (how this does not fail WP:COI, for a cult charging extensive prices for counseling I can't understand). Go ahead and compare the obnosis Wikipedia, Wiktionary and ObnosisWiki versions and tell me that the Wikipedia (and Wiktionary) processes and policies that are built in to allow new content, historical content worthy from within the WP:NOTE and WP:BIO, and maintain a neutral correct point of view are being implemented?
  • The sheer number of references alone (which by Wikipedia standards, do not have to ALL be exemplary of or for Subject reliable sources, but be developed in context to the subject matter) meet the requirements for reliable source based on the Notability claimed in the BIO header and therefore prove the retention of this page. Is this a case of ignore all rules or simply an agenda of not wanting to take on any controversial or possibly controversial Scientology content (obnosis) however historical, because of the probable Scientology edit wars and Denial of Service packet issues due to their claimed ownership of the word obnosis.

Jayron32, nominator appears to confuse use of verifiability with WP:NOTE and WP:BIO. Deletion of content appropriate for a User:Page, especially for a previously deleted user (without adequate proof of sockpuppetry) during controversy and a possible Scientology based edit war of page submissions (obnosis) fails to meet with good faith assumptions and hint at bias. Optimally, Lisa Kachold page could happily be designated via WP:RM to User:Lisa Kachold should {verify} attempts from community editing/submitting content fail to meet Wikipedia inclusion standards. Overuse of Nomination for Deletion as iron handed censor swipes from Wikipedia Administrators/Editors is lampooned on external sites. Also, once a page is retained/deleted after Nomination for Deletion, it cannot be submitted/nominated again; so censorship is created via failing to allow for content to meet minimum requirements built into Wikipedia policy and process. This is a second unregistered Wiki User from the same IP, not a WP:Sock.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment Sources (3rd, 2nd and primary) Available for WP:NOTE WP:BIO

http://bbslist.textfiles.com/503/oldschool.html
http://www.textfiles.com/bbs/BBSLISTS/pdxbbs-l.txt
http://www.coderanch.com/t/75138/Websphere/WUG-WebSphere-User-s-Groups
http://wiki.freegeek.org/index.php/User:Obnosis
http://www.linkedin.com/in/obnosis (NOTE IBM, Randal L. Schwartz/Stonehenge connections in context to stated professional History)
http://www.mail-archive.com/search?q=lisa+kachold&l=plug-discuss%40lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_name=82BA6DCD9735C34ABC38DF9FF37DAE6C02200E79%40santana.ic.aiall
http://www.geekspeakr.com/speaker/lisa-kachold
http://unix.derkeiler.com/Mailing-Lists/SunManagers/2007-07/
http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Obnosis_(deleted_05_Sep_2008_at_03:45)
http://wiki.obnosis.com

Forums from RhinoEquipment with svn sources can be obtained (although serveftp.com is not allowed by Wikipedia): htttp://rhinopub.serveftp.com/phpBB/profile.php?mode=viewprofileu=86&sid=b5ab488e0aa5a903e86e6e7504f92941

A great deal of other sources are available, including soon to be released news.

Please tell us all which one is not allowed by the policy and how many of what you require. Books are not used in all the other notable women or Bios? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 03:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder Read WP:OTHERSTUFF about why we don't care about the "other notable women or Bios". Katr67 (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Users and article submitters have made very clear requests after reading the WP:BIO and Reliability source policy information for feedback from editors or Administrators in an educational way specific to why the reliable sources that prove claimed Notability are not adequate? According to the BIO, this person as a technical woman during the .Com years, working in the trenches, DOES meet Notability? According to the BIO, this person, as a technical woman registering the domain obnosis.com as a hack IS notable; Notabiity for tiger team and security work, User's Group contributions, and device driver or source development is also proven by reliable sources. According to Wikipedia policy, Deletion without community respect, user training and very specific description of an article submission's failings, while invoking subject vagueness and/or the Wiki defense of intellectualism, is seriously frowned upon? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.119.178 (talk) 01:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We'd love to give feedback. :-) Can you provide a specific quote from one of those sources that shows why Lisa Kachold might be especially notable? Just one will do for now. We can then do the feedback for that first quote, and let's see where goes from there. Even if the deadline passes, nothing is permanently deleted on wikipedia, so we can take our time to sort this out. --Kim Bruning (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've been told there is going to be an article coming out soon, and that it might cover some notability concerns? Could we decide to wait for that? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to holding a DRV later if an article appears in print which addresses all of the many problems. EdJohnston (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Might be handy to keep article in a holding pattern in userspace, while we wait? That way we get to keep these new editors around, and hopefully they'll learn and work on more wiki-topics, and tell their friends too. :-) That might be somewhat worth it.--Kim Bruning (talk) 02:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Murder of Mary Quigley. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Archibeque

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

Lacks Notability, Biography of Living Person Criteria Poettobe (talk) 19:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Why are Richard Ramirez, Richard Allen Davis and the multitude of others here "notoable", while Richard Archibeque, a serial rapist and murderer who raped and murdered and hung a teenage high school student on a cyclone fence naked in a public place not notable? Also, checkout the Wiki Crime Project at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Crime_and_Criminal_Biography Cloudswrest (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tragic news content is not necessarily notable or biographical. The mission of the Wikipedia encyclopedia is to catalog material with enduring usefulness, not to be a crime registry and/or a repository of current events and memorials. Update: Because all the information in this article is about the case, not the person, it should be merged with the article about the case Murder of Mary Quigley, although I do not think that article should be kept either since the case lacks landmarks as noted by MacGyverMagic. Since the perpetrator has no distinct profile, he should also be referred to as "Richard Armand Archibeque" the way three names are used for the Richard Allen Davis profile rather than just Richard Archibeque since search engines bring up multiple people named Richard Archibeque (ie Business Ad for Cement Mason Richard Archibeque from NM- the first hit on Yahoo [77]. The three names creates distinction [78])). Three names should probably also be used for Richard Ramirez, although at least he has a profile name, "The Night Stalker".--Poettobe (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Richard Ramirez had some relevance to the work of AC/DC and Richard Allen Davis (I'm not too happy with how his record is included there) had an effect on California's "Three strikes law" for repeat offenders. Crimes tend to be covered when they are important in a greater context or have lasting consequences on law/justice. - Mgm|(talk) 22:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There's no biographical information in the "biography" at all. It's based entirely on his latest conviction and the case surrounding it. The event may be notable, but he is not. If that case is notable, the information should be written into an article on the case. Perhaps merging this article to Murder of Mary Quigley would be best. ₳dam Zel 14:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Maybe an entire article should be created for "Cold cases solved with DNA" since this is not the only case. The Rape and Murder of Linda Bennitt took place in 1984. The case was reopened in 2007. Mark "" Erler was charged in August 2008 and convicted February 2009. [79] [80]. There is a whole list of these cases for Denver alone, and there is a name to the project, DENVER COLD CASE PROJECT [81]. Update: There is already a similar cold case solved by DNA example in Wikipedia: Cold case- Characteristics of a criminal cold case- Notable Examples: 2005 Edmond Jay Marr pleaded guilty to the March 1983 kidnap and murder of Elaine Graham [82]. I do not know if the Elaine Graham case is the first of this kind. ABC News also has several article on this issue, and suggests that DNA follow-up could be appropriate for tens of thousands of cases [83]--Poettobe (talk) 08:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:34, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOT#NEWS. Even the event itself does not appear to be terribly notable as a murderer/rape case, so I don't see that there's much here for long-term encyclopedic relevence. The article seems to violate WP:NOT#MEMORIAL as the article seems to be little more than a memorial to one of his victims (check the external links section) and there does not appear to be any lasting importance of this case according to any reliable sources. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:56, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 17:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two hundred fifty-sixth note

[edit]
Two hundred fifty-sixth note (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Is this note ever used frequently enough for people to recognize it?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I would have said merge any verifiable information into Musical note, but there does not appear to BE any verifiable information. My favorite line in the whole article is "256th notes are exceptionally rare, obviously more so than one hundred twenty-eighth notes. Likewise, a 256th rest is virtually unknown, but no evidence says that neither of them don't exist." No evidence says it doesn't exist? What sort of doublespeak is that??? Seriously, even if there WAS something here worth perserving as information, I don't see why there needs to be an entire article for it. It can be more efficiently mentioned in other articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - completely agree with Jayron32. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jayron32 is right about the doublespeak. Clearly this is an attempt to defend the existence of the subject in the article itself, based upon an argument about the reasonableness of the idea rather than based upon the verifiability of the content. A search for sources reveals no documentation in any treatise on music of any note shorter than the semihemidemisemiquaver, which is documented (in Grove's Dictionary of Music, for starters). This, is not. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 05:35, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unverifiable, original research, basically nothing to say that isn't simply a logical extrapolation of rules given in Musical note. JulesH (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no evidence that this is original research, in fact I think it's likely that the note exists. However, there's no indication that it's ever been used, and even if it has, it's incredibly rare. I don't agree with DGG's non-abridged encyclopedia idea; we all know that the Notability criteria means that lots of things don't get included in all fields. --GedUK  14:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete demisemihemidemisemiquaver, that's a new one on me! Anyhow, it's all original research. There isn't even a mention of the note's usage in any notable pieces of music, unlike the good example at the 128th note page. Themfromspace (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:39, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darius Sunawala

[edit]
Darius Sunawala (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Declined speedy. Local DJs are inherently non-notable. One needs many reliable, independent sources *where the person is the primary subject* to clear that hurdle. That does not appear to be the case here. Yes, there are mentions of this fellow in the Hindu Times, but virtually every one of them mentions him in passing. An article covering an event where this guy made a brief appearance as a presenter is inadequate coverage. DarkAudit (talk) 02:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. THF (talk) 03:04, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. For clarity, he's not a "local DJ", but rather a radio personality and radio station program director. Gnews finds a few reliable sources, [84], but I think it's safe to say there'd be a lot more hits for an American media personality of similar stature. We need to take care to avoid systemic bias when evaluating the notability of non-Western subjects. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply I'd say a program director would be even less notable than a DJ. A "radio personality" is a DJ. Don't parse my words. Looking at the write-up for Fever 104 FM, it sure looks like a local station to me. local is local, no matter where "local" may be. I checked Google News before I ever made the nomination. Just mentioning the guy for handing out an award is not sufficient coverage when the story is about the award, and not the presenter. DarkAudit (talk) 03:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further Reply Do you have an actual reason to keep this article beyond accusing me of bias for being a "Westerner"? DarkAudit (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not accusing you of anything -- everybody has to be aware of CSB problems while editing. It's your job to demonstrate a valid rationale for deletion, and so far you haven't done so. "Inherently non-notable" is a bad argument, and standard methods of measuring notability via sourcing don't work well for this type of subject. The article should be kept because it covers a notable media personality; again, if this were an American media personality of similar stature, I don't think this would even be an issue. Baileypalblue (talk) 04:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree there. Multiple sources about the subject is one way to establish notability, but surely not the only one. Also, while it might not be a good idea to cover everything in the world, I have yet to find anything that is inherently non-notable. You might be thinking of verifiability. - Mgm|(talk) 10:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • When I talk of "inherently non-notable" here I mean that you're going to get lots of local press for a "radio personality" because he's, well, local. But go an hour or two down the highway in any direction, where that station may not reach, and you may be hard pressed to find anyone who cares one way or the other about the guy. You're certainly not going to see much in the way of media coverage about him once you get out that far. He's a big-city DJ,and the *local* press amounts to as much. Trivial coverage where he just happened to appear at an event that was the real focus of that coverage. The American DJs who are notable enough to warrant an article all have national audiences at numerous radio stations across the country. A guy at a single station in a single city, with media coverage to match, wouldn't. DarkAudit (talk) 14:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • There's non non-local coverage clause for individuals as there is for organizations, but if there was one, this subject would not be a good test case for it. He's a media personality in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka, which is larger than any US city except New York, and which has more population than about half of the world's countries. His current radio station (Fever 104 FM) broadcasts nationally; he previously worked at one of the largest radio networks in the world. Your suggestion that if you go an hour or two outside Bangalore people won't care about him is implausible, but even if true he'd still have "a large fan base" available in Bangalore (one of the criteria of WP:ENTERTAINER). Baileypalblue (talk) 17:36, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Just because the number is big, doesn't make it useful. The way I read that Fever 104 writeup, it's more of a collection of local stations under one banner name, each city with it's own set of personalities. By your standards, we would have articles on any DJ that works in a major city. I say that a DJ in NYC might be big in NYC, but in Philly, or even Trenton, you'd get "who?". DarkAudit (talk) 18:09, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Not every radio personality, just the culturally significant ones. Sunawala appears to have been considered one of the top two RJs in Bangalore along with Sunaina Lall. The fact that there are fawning celebrity articles on him suggests he's more culturally significant than the non-notable RJs who should be excluded. The fact that he's cited in articles on unrelated subjects suggests he's more influential than the average non-notable RJ. There's plenty of evidence available online which is not exactly suitable for use in the article, but nevertheless provides indirect evidence of notability. Baileypalblue (talk) 18:50, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom unless other sources/info surfaces that can change my !vote §hawnpoo 05:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: trivial coverage. JamesBurns (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Several of the articles found by the Google News search linked above are in fact largely about the subject, including The Hindu saying that he "needs no introduction", which is a pretty obvious statement of notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I must agree with Phil Bridger. This person has had multiple, independent sources that show his notability. He's attacted celebrity and notice. Normally, DJs and the like aren't notable, but this seems to be an exception. Bearian (talk) 00:12, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Delete. Eluchil404 (talk) 22:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caron Myers

[edit]
Caron Myers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Does not appear to satisfy WP:NOTE. Cirt (talk) 12:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep. Though the article doesn't currently indicate WP:BIO notability, a Google search in citation marks gives about 22,000 hits which, though by no means unfallible, suggests that there may be some notability going on; none of the hits I browsed through, however, clearly established this as WP:RS reliable secondary sources, so I'm still largely undecided. My "vote" of weak keep is based on giving the article the benefit of the reasonable doubt. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 16:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amount of Google hits is not really the best rationale, per Wikipedia:Search_engine_test#Notability. Cirt (talk) 17:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I can find articles written by Meyers, and I can find articles where she is quoted in her capacity as a spokesperson. What I cannot find are articles written about her. She is not the subject of coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 16:45, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Pastor Theo (talk) 02:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 00:12, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

[edit]
Mauldin v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure why this was ever an article, but it never once complied with NPOV in its lengthy history as a stub fork from another Wal-Mart fork, and no one in the last two years bothered to update it with the fact that the plaintiffs slunk away and voluntarily dismissed the suit without receiving a penny, or before the court issued any rulings of any precedential value. WP:NOT#NEWS, even if third-party coverage existed. I PROD'd it; an editor told me it previously survived a couple of AFDs, but I couldn't find any evidence of them. I deleted the PROD myself and took it to AFD. THF (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —THF (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. RayTalk 04:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable non-sustained lawsuits could fill a few terabytes of space. And still have no value. Collect (talk) 11:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I've seen very few NN Lawsuit-related articles in the past 2 years, and I've worked on a lot of them, but this is one of the few truly meaningless legal articles. Bearian (talk) 17:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This article may not be notable solely as an independent legal case, but it is certainly notable regarding the history of Wal-Mart labor relations, the issue of occupational sex discrimination, and the issue of insurance coverage of contraceptives. Not only was this lawsuit covered by numerous mainstream news sources, it is also mentioned in the book The Handbook of Women, Psychology, and the Law. That seems to meet the notability requirement of receiving significant coverage in reliable sources, IMO. And FWIW, the reason this case was dropped was not because the plaintiffs "slunk away", it was because Wal-Mart finally caved and agreed to change their policy. So this lawsuit actually had a very important effect. Finally, I don't see any POV issues with the current version. Kaldari (talk) 17:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The lawsuit didn't "have an important effect," because if it did, the for-profit attorneys behind the case would have asked for damages and attorneys' fees instead of voluntarily dismissing a certified class and taking away zero. It was a meritless lawsuit. THF (talk) 19:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it was meritless, why did Wal-Mart agree to change their policy? Regardless, it's not our place to debate the merit of the lawsuit, just to list what is reported in reliable sources. Please feel free to add more on Wal-Mart's claims if you can find any info about them. (I couldn't.) Kaldari (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing legally required Wal-Mart to, but also nothing stopped Wal-Mart from voluntarily deciding that they would be more competitive in the labor market by offering different health benefits. The change was part of a larger overhaul of its health benefits policy, and had nothing to do with the lawsuit. Milberg Weiss doesn't drop a billion-dollar lawsuit for zero if it has a shred of merit: they were notorious for prosecuting meritless lawsuits until the defendant said uncle and paid protection money to get out of the suit. THF (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing except the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission's 2000 ruling that employers "must cover the expenses of prescription contraceptives to the same extent and on the same terms, that they cover the expenses of preventative drugs, devices, and preventative care." As the federal agency charged with administering and enforcing Title VII, the EEOC's interpretation of the law is authoritative, BTW. See also Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. (2001), Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. United Parcel Service (2001), and Cooley v. Daimler Chrysler Corp. (2003). So if you really must debate the point, it seems that Wal-Mart's defense was meritless, not the other way around. Kaldari (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Several courts disagreed with that EEOC decision, which wasn't law, as opposed to a litigation position that they had inconsistent success with. See, e.g., In re Union Pac. R. Empl. Pract. Lit., 479 F.3d 936 (8th Cir. 2007); Cummins v. Illinois, No. 02-4201 (S.D.Ill. Aug. 30, 2005). Again, if Wal-Mart's position was "meritless", Milberg Weiss wouldn't have dismissed their billion-dollar lawsuit (which had asked for back pay) for zero.
In short, this is not a notable case. It set no precedent. No money changed hands. It had no effect on the world other than being another black mark on Milberg Weiss's stained accounting. If you wish to have an article about Requirement of coverage of prescription contraceptives under Title VII, where this is one of several cases discussed, I wouldn't have an objection. THF (talk) 21:03, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia's notibility guidelines don't mention anything about legal precedents or exchanging money. Kaldari (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A better merger would be to Milberg Weiss, as the most notable thing about the case is the law firm running away from it the minute the court suggested that they could be investigated for kickbacks. THF (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I didn't really want to get into this discussion, but it used to be in a Wal-Mart criticism article (what is now Criticism of Wal-Mart) and the reason I forked it is that during the time we thought it being there was POV. I don't think it's NPOV to treat lawsuits as criticism because lawsuits are more like events. In such cases I think it's more appropriate to put it in the article on the prosecutor or the subject instead of an article about the defendant. Thus I agree with THF on here that if a consensus to merge the article was reached, it should go to Milberg Weiss and not Criticism of Wal-Mart. As far as this AFD goes, I abstain. Tuxide (talk) of WikiProject Retailing 04:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It should be noted that the article is now over three times longer than it was when it was nominated for deletion and now includes 13 cited references instead of just one. Kaldari (talk) 23:13, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The reason it is longer is because, to get the article to achieve NPOV so it wasn't just reciting non-reliable sources and plaintiffs' allegations, I had to use primary sources. There's very little secondary-source coverage. It's surely not the case that every lawsuit that gets an article in the Fulton County Daily Report is notable, because then Wikipedia would be filled with thousands of cases from Atlanta, with a few hundred new articles every year. Most of the secondary-source coverage that exists is based on the false prediction that the lawsuit would amount to something, and all but one of the secondary sources have basic factual errors about the law that make them questionable sources for discussion of a lawsuit.
Using primary coverage, I can make many many many lengthy articles about non-notable cases in Wikipedia. So length tells us nothing about notability. Most civil cases have docket sheets dozens or hundreds of entries long, and it's possible to WP:PUFF up an article with a paragraph about each docket entry--as was done in this article with sentence after inaccurate sentence about the court's tentative class certification.
For a case to be notable, it should be noted by other cases. E.g., it should be a case that either (1) changed the law in a notable way, (2) had a result that was notable, or (3) is widely cited by other cases as a precedent. This case is only notable because of the fallout from the Milberg Weiss scandal. Any other result and we violate WP:NOT#NEWS. THF (talk) 11:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read WP:NOT#NEWS? This lawsuit is hardly a breaking news event. Of course, you're right that the length of the article doesn't matter that much. But considering the plethora of newspapers and magazines that covered this lawsuit, including The Nation, USA Today, and Ms. magazine, it seems pretty evident that it was, in fact, a notable lawsuit. If you believe that the notability requirements for lawsuits should be different than those of regular articles, you should propose that as a separate guideline. Kaldari (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ms. Magazine reprinted a press release. The Nation gave it three sentences. USA Today gave it one sentence and was talking about the larger legal issue (and I support an article about the larger legal issue rather than six smaller articles that are meaningless out of context). None of that is significant independent coverage by virtue of flunking one adjective or the other. THF (talk) 17:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is zero evidence that this is why it changed its policy, and much evidence that it wasn't. If Milberg was right on the law, it surrendered tens of millions of dollars for no reason. THF (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Could have been"? Seems like SYN is a requirement to buy that as an argument. The death of Abe Lincoln's reputed girlfriend "could have been" the cause of the Civil War. I did not find "could have been" to be used as a valid reason for keeping any article in the archives here - it is surely an interesting reason. Collect (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since the The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, all that editors need do to show it as not WP:SYNTH is cite the reliable sources which make this conjecture, and state that it is a conjecture. Readers may always visit these sources and make their own determinations. Simple. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, no reliable source says that. WP:NOT#NEWS is supposed to prevent us from cluttering up the encyclopedia with articles of transient interest just because they're mentioned by a few sentences in a couple of newspaper articles. No one is ever going to write about this case again; it was meritless when it was filed, it was meritless when it was dismissed (it was dismissed without prejudice, but no one refiled it), and the only reason it has half the press coverage it does was because of short-circuited investigation into trial-lawyer corruption. THF (talk) 21:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If someone were investigating the history of insurance coverage of contraceptives, I think this article would be marginally interesting to them. Of course, Erickson v. Bartell Drug Co. would be a lot more interesting. Also, someone doing research on Wal-Mart's health insurance policies might find the article interesting as well. Or someone researching the history of Milberg. Just because the case was legally inconclusive doesn't mean it wasn't notable as an event in history. Kaldari (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. BJTalk 22:29, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Savarese

[edit]
Chris Savarese (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:Notability scope_creep (talk) 00:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep this page.chris savarese is with out a doubt one of the most notable names in the american BJJ and Submission Grappling scene, Having owned and operated one of the more well known sport clothing companies as well as being the Head Referee for arguably the largest Submission Grappling and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu tournament Circuit(Search Grapplers Quest) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spuddizzle (talk • contribs) 22:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC) — Spuddizzle (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

keep this page: Sav has put his heart and hard work into the sport for many years. Everything in this page is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsalonia (talk • contribs) 01:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Jsalonia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep this pagechris savarese is one of the top submission and jiu-jitsu guy on the East Coast and one of the best jiu-jitsu instructors. his acdemy has produced many tournament champions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JFessano (talk • contribs) 02:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — JFessano (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep THis is definitely notable. Chris Savarese is one of the most notable names on the American Brazilian Jiu Jitsu scene. Not only has he trained under two members of the Gracie family, he received his Black Belt directly from the son of Grandmaster Helio Gracie. Chris has helped pave the way for new rules and safer tournaments across the country. He did this by heading up the Referee team for Grapplers Quest. To that add the fact that he is the matchmaker for Grapplers Quest's professional division which have helped skyrocketed some of the biggest names in America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanBermudez (talk • contribs) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — SeanBermudez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    • Comment it would be helpful to have more sources to verify this, such as newspaper or martial arts magazine stories, mentions in (or authorship of) books, etc. JJL (talk)

Bold textkeep it-I know Chris Savarese as one of the best BJJ blackbelts in NJ and head ref of the Grapplers Quest. He is also on the rules comitee for Grapplers Quest and a former owner of a MMA clothing company called Tribe Fightwear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crusher23 (talk • contribs) 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC) — Crusher23 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

The result was speedy delete. A7 Tone 13:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Desceth

[edit]
Desceth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BAND scope_creep (talk) 00:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian soccer players with multiple nationalities and List of Asian footballers with foreign heritage

[edit]
Canadian soccer players with multiple nationalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This list of players is unreferenced, indiscriminate, and obsolete as a long-established (and fully referenced) article already exists at List of football players with dual nationality. GiantSnowman 03:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am also nominating the following article for deletion for the same reason:
List of Asian footballers with foreign heritage (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). GiantSnowman 03:19, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. GiantSnowman 03:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Technically, the nomination is slightly faulty. While there is a list about dual nationalities, the discussed title could potentially contain people with triple or quadruple nationalities if they exist (which the current title doesn't account for). Either way, I think it is reasonable to keep this as a redirect for people who search using 'multiple' instead of 'dual' regardless of whether the ponderings I made above are proven true. -Mgm|(talk) 10:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Other crap exists, to be sure, but even crap has to meet minimum standards. The problem that I see with both of these articles is (a) a lack of any sourcing (b) unclear what the criteria are for inclusion (c) indiscriminate lists. In the Canadian article, there is a long list of sixty "Players who plays for Canada"-- are there any Canadian born players on the Canadian national team? Are there that many people on the bench while 11 men are on the field playing for Canada? Then there's "Canadian with Dual nationalities by descent" with a lot of names (many many of them Italian), but not a clue as to which team they may play for. What does dual nationality by descent mean? If your name is Kevin and you have an Italian surname, does that mean that you're a citizen of Italy? The other list has players who are either "1/1" or "1/2" foreign, with no clue as to whether they're on the national team, or playing for a top division club. Does 1/1 mean that you're not a citizen, or does it mean that your parents are from another country? If you're 1/2 Brazilian, like Marcus Tulio Tanaka, does that mean that you have dual Japanese-Brazilian citizenship, or that Dad was from Brazil? Both of these lists are a mess, and I have my doubts that they can be fixed, based on the amount of work it would take. Mandsford (talk) 15:27, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I would really like to see would be a team made up of Canadian soccer players with multiple personalities -- like a goalie who suddenly says "Wait a second! How did I get here?". Mandsford (talk) 15:28, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 23:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Chapman

[edit]
Elizabeth Chapman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article resembles an advertisement. The only links are to commercial sites and I can't dig up anything that proves there's more to these books than the fact they exist. Unless I overlooked something, this should be deleted Mgm|(talk) 10:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. She does appear to have written several books in the 1950s to 1980s, but I cannot see that any of her books have any independent reviews, nor am I able to find any biographical material about Chapman. Childrens' authors are often overlooked, and since her work is pre-1990 I suspect that any sources may be paper based, not online. At present, I need to concur with the nomination, but I would be delighted to change my vote if some evidence of notability pops up. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:53, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • point of clarification Are you actually arguing that we should favor more recent authors who have online citations over pre-net authors? I understood good WP policy to be a conscious avoidance of that, & if that's your justification, than I must vote keep against that. Ventifax (talk) 18:52, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • No. If there are paper references, then the article should be kept, but the problem is I cannot find evidence of such either. I cannot cast a keep vote on an unreferenced article based on speculation that paper sources exist. If someone can point to relevant sources, online or paper, I'll change my vote. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are no longer many library holdings in the US, as such authors do get overlooked unless they become great classics & it seems probable that hey were of interest only in the UK, whose public libraries are not well represented in WorldCat. . But 3 of the books were translated into Swedish[85], some of the works are in anthologies, [86]. Google news search does not yet cover UK papers adequately, and I have not had the chance to search for reviews, otherwise. DGG (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. This seems like an article in need of work/clean-up, but not deletion. Vartanza (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:12, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'll refrain from !voting "keep" because the truth is, my mum used to read me Marmaduke books back in the 1970's when I was little, and I loved them. That's not objective enough to form the basis of any !vote, of course. They won't appear in any reviews for the same reason you won't see reviews of "John and Jane Go To The Park": there's not enough substance to review.—S Marshall Talk/Cont 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This really could be speedied under lack of context. I mean the article doesn't even say when she was alive, where she was from, and other basic information in a biographical article. Someone can always recreate the page later with propper sources and content.Inmysolitude (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand According to OpenLibrary, Chapman has written 24 books published by different publishing houses between 1957 and 1982, and by DGG's source, some were translated into another language. That's not the hallmarks of a vanity press, it is a clear indicator of notability. Surely some of them were reviewed somewhere. We can't find everything in Google (unfortunately!). It's true the article as it is doesn't have much more than a list of those books, but even that is better than nothing. The existence of stubs encourages people to expand them. --GRuban (talk) 12:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Dominican Republic 1927

[edit]
Miss Dominican Republic 1927 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A contested prod. It may be a WP:Hoax. (Because it is not a blatent hoax, it should not be speedied)Smallman12q (talk) 15:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The following articles are also believed to be hoaxes:

Miss Dominican Republic 1928 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Dominican Republic 1929 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Dominican Republic 1952 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Dominican Republic 1953 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Dominican Republic 1954 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Miss Dominican Republic 1955 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Why articles should be deleted
    What motivated me to participate as an editor in Wikipedia, was that I was searching information for the Miss Domininican Republic 1969, for which I was one of the contestants. I found the page, and was surprise to see that the whole article was an invention of this person. The names did not match, the date and place of the event all were made up. I changed the information and provided a reputable link in the edit summary. I also provided images and newspaper clip, to prevent this person to change back the information.
    I have also noted that this person not only invents information about pageants, but also about geographical subjects. Please see MRDU08 (talk · contribs)page to see debates about his pattern of invented information. --Juliaaltagracia (talk) 21:32, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colón Insular Region is relevant. I'd be extremely leery of any Miss Dominican Republic articles (and there are more than just these) created by User:MRDU08. Deor (talk) 13:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:04, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. When the album is out, I have no strong feelings against recreation. Tone 13:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mic check (rapper)

[edit]
Mic check (rapper) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a possible vanity page to me. Article claims he has a recording contract with Sony Records, but no sources are present to verify this claim. I formally declare shenanigans. --Bongwarrior (talk) 07:07, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keeper His notability is out there as far as im concerned just do a Google search of mic check CT or Wolcott and you will get a bus load of links to click away on also his site has the artical from sonys page [87] Delldell.
  • Keep I have found alot of information on this artist from his offical website and google searched also if you look on sonymusic.com and you search for artisit hes under the TBD cat. you have to take your time and look though its not going to jump out at you. oldschool411
  • KEEP!! This guys myspace page has over 100,000 plays and close to 100,000 views with several youtube videos up and over 18,000 fans on his page alone definitly notable enough for me. Likethis
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TYPO3

[edit]
TYPO3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)
    • And several incoming redirects.
  • Queried speedy-delete-tagging. This page was tagged db-spam, but it has existed since 13:20, 5 May 2004. The software described seems to be free and thus there is no financial gain in describing it here. But move this page to Typo3? (WP:MOSTM) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The idea that spam and advertising are only done for commercial gain. To draw customers, website visitors or increase brand name visibility is spam too. - Mgm|(talk) 11:10, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There is this article, and a bunch of German language results from a Gioogle News search. Many are press releases but I suspect amongst that mess is some more reliable coverage not in English which I am unable to read. -- Whpq (talk) 17:02, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The writing in the article is not that good, but TYPO3 is an important open source CMS. It is used widely worldwide. This year there will be a TYPO3 congres in the USA titled T3CON09, TYPO3 is mentioned on CMSWatch with systems like Joomla, Drupal, OpenCMS and Plone as open source systems, and 43 other commercial systems. Also the EContent Magazine, which I regard as an objective source, has a fresh article about open source Web Content Management, and they mention TYPO3 as one of the 10 major players See the article here. So it is a definitive keep, but the article should be rewritten from an objective point of view. Herlaar (talk) 17:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the article you linked to doesn't really cover TYPO3 beyond mentioning in a list. That Although indicative of notability when included on such lists, we really would need something more substantive written about TYPO3 itself. I've identified one article above. Are you aware of any more articles written about TYPO3? -- Whpq (talk) 17:49, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:03, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - TYPO3 is an important CMS, used worldwide, and it is free. I do not see a difference between the neutrality of this article, or i.e. the entry for Joomla! I also think that the restriction of references only to the ones in English, is, from an academic point of view, absurd. Then wikipedia would be dependent of the incapabilities of the editors, and not about the information and content that is meaningful and supporting an article with proper and accurate sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.146.248.159 (talk) 17:06, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - What this article needs (as well as most of the other WCMS entries, too) is a neutral summary similar to Drupal's first few paragraphs. TYPO3 is important enough to merit an entry, but one written in a straight forward fashion, not trying to extol the virtues with hype words like "powerful, flexible, extensible" and other such meaningless terms, especially in relation to CMSs. After all if it isn't all that, we wouldn't be wanting to use it. Tell us HOW it is extended, in which way it is flexible, etc. GuiderBob (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Tons of news coverage: [88] Heavy coverage in scholarly literature too: [89]. Cazort (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Mifumi. MBisanz talk 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mifumi Primary School

[edit]
Mifumi Primary School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article doesn't appear to have notability. A Google search reveals only references to it by third-parties, most of these from various national Internal Revenue Service-type agencies, examining the budget and charity claims of the organisation running it. I suggest that, as an institution, the school is non-notable. ╟─TreasuryTag►contribs─╢ 07:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Also, I found a source mentioning the school: [90] but not enough to justify its own article. Cazort (talk)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tropical Cyclone 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Confluential Assembly

[edit]
Confluential Assembly (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Neologism / original research. Google had never seen the phrase until it saw this article. No references. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 09:01, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 23:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TelluRide (Country Band)

[edit]
TelluRide (Country Band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Seems to fail WP:MUSIC. Played a couple gigs and compted in an unnamed competition that may not be notable. No reliable sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 15:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:02, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Langit Ng Pag-ibig

[edit]
Langit Ng Pag-ibig (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Crystalball article. ABS-CBN had not yet confirmed if this show will eventually air or had begun production. Bluemask (talk) 10:30, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Authbind

[edit]
Authbind (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references. Poorly written §hawnpoo 17:40, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So do a half dozen i8n libs. I don't see how being available in a major distribution's package repo qualifies it for inherited notability. That said, looking for print sources to cleanup the unref'd issue noted above - Bound to be something. MrZaiustalk 02:18, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Authbind has been included in Debian GNU/Linux since etch [91] and its also included in Ubuntu [92]
A quick Google Books search shows the software is mentioned in a number of books such as:
Debian GNU/Linux Bible
by Steve Hunger
2nd edition, May 2001
ISBN 0764547100
pg. 609
As for the i18n question you posed, going by WP:COMMON I'd think i18n libraries probably wouldn't justify their own article. Coverage of those would probably be much better suited for an article about i18n support. Larger more complex libraries such as gnu libc, I'd very much expect to have their own article.
--Tothwolf (talk) 08:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: poor nomination, no existent reason for removal. – 74  00:07, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep now has reference; no longer poorly written. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:30, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I agree that this was a weak nomination: the relevant questions are whether good sources exist, not how "good" the page currently is. But a single debian package page (a page which has almost no content!) hardly establishes WP:Notability. Authbind gets no google news archive hits: [93] and barely any google book or scholar hits...and upon investigating these "hits" I found none of them actually discuss or have any content about the material...the text either doesn't appear at all, or appears only in a list. The only possible reference I found on this utility was: [94] which has two very short sentences. There isn't enough material to justify an article. We need to find more sources that actually write about this topic at length and establish its importance if we are to keep the article. Cazort (talk) 18:26, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It was established long ago that being present in a Linux distribution means a program meets WP:N. In this instance we also have a book source. Can you find any software other than something such as Firefox or a general 'Linux' mention in Google news? Google news is not a suitable argument for 99% of Open Source software. Tothwolf (talk) 18:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually looked in the "book sources"? Unless I'm missing something, they do not talk about authbind in any length whatsoever. Some of them, when I clicked through and did a text search, did not even contain the text "authbind" which makes me wonder if they're search errors. The ones that contained it contained it in a list, without any actual content. There is barely enough accurate sourcable material to back up an article of more than a couple sentences. Small articles are great for inclusion in wikipedia when they can be expanded. If you don't want to delete, how about we merge/redirect somewhere? Cazort (talk) 18:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed I have. I also know that Google hasn't indexed even a fraction of the books about open source software. Here is a link to the CVS repository for authbind [95] The author of authbind is Ian Jackson who is very well known in the open source community. Tothwolf (talk) 19:13, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The reason you were not able to find much visible page content via a Google books search is Google leaves out large viewable sections of books (aka preview) so as to not hurt actual book sales. Tothwolf (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will trust you, if you have actually found significant coverage in one of those texts, then I would be fully in favor of a Keep. Cazort (talk) 20:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone ahead and rewritten the article with what I had immediately available. I've included enough information now that it should be possible for others to further expand it. Tothwolf (talk) 20:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Boston College . MBisanz talk 04:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Degree programs at Boston College

[edit]
Degree programs at Boston College (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a directory or catalogue, nor an alternative to a university prospectus. This amounts to little more than spam. Nuttah (talk) 21:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, and then consider whether to Merge back. The list of majors is considered appropriate content in the article on a college--and whether to list it separately is a decision on style. It was previously split, and afd is not for considering the merits of such editing decisions. I am not sure whether it should be separate, but this is not the place to discuss it. DGG (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to the college article. Not very useful as a standalone article. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 05:27, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not provide secondary, reliable sources. Sources are directly from Boston College, which are primary. If any Boston College degree program has recieved notable coverage in secondary sources to require an article it can be made. However, as is, this article is a directory of programs derived from primary sources, and is not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. -Atmoz (talk) 17:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
probably a good idea to wait for the consensus on all of the related ones. DGG (talk) 04:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unencyclopedic directory information, but concur with DGG that a uniform decision would be desirable). JJL (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete. I agree with Atmoz's comments about this not being sourced from independent sources. I do not think it is appropriate to include material such as a list of majors on a college's page unless the material can be sourced in reliable independent sources. I also think this article is unencyclopedic. AND it duplicates material that is best left to the collge's homepage--and then it must be updated as the programs change over time. Wikipedia is not a mirror! Not is it a place for original research! This page strikes me as having too many possible objections. And it's a list...and I feel like lists need a strong justification to exist before they should be included in wikipedia. Cazort (talk) 18:55, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think the college is a reliable source for its own degree programs, if for no other reason than accreditation standards, though with some for-profit colleges I might share your concern. I understand the fork-for-length argument, but it's only being forked because it's a list that would indeed mirror an ever-changing university web page. Having the school's web page as an external link in the main page should be sufficient for such directory-style information (in most cases). JJL (talk) 19:29, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Majoreditor (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nikki Silva

[edit]
Nikki Silva (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Some of the text was likely originally lifted from [96] - changes to the text have pulled it away from this, but the "needs refs" and "may not meet WP:N" tags are enough to make me think that this needs deletion. Raymie Humbert (local radar | current conditions) 18:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, according to WP:BIO, a person is notable if winning a notable award, e.g. the Peabody Award as the article states. Alternatively, since she won the award as part of a group, we might create, merge, redirect, etc. into that group's article, but since she is known for more than that, I think we should keep the article as-is. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:20, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yours, Mine and Ours (Philippine Remake)

[edit]
Yours, Mine and Ours (Philippine Remake) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No references or citations given to verify posted information. Violates WP:CRYSTAL Xeltran (talk) 15:40, 8 March 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) 00:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Punkmorten (talk) 09:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vadym Meshkurinho

[edit]
Vadym Meshkurinho (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Looks like a hoax, no sources found. There was no such player in both FC Karpaty Lviv and FC Lviv, he never played for Al Ahly NickK (talk) 19:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mandy May

[edit]
Mandy May (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:PORNBIO. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 19:31, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but that is not a valid argument per WP:OTHERSTUFF. A porn star must either meet WP:PORNBIO, WP:BIO, or WP:GNG to be on here - or meet other specific notability criteria if he / she is also notable for other things than porn. Indeed, your argument also sounds a little WP:POINT-prone. -Lilac Soul (talk • contribs • count) 13:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 04:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David J. Cynamon

[edit]
David J. Cynamon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No secondary sources in this WP:BIO that has been tagged with the advertisement tag for a year without improvement. Another Guantanamo attorney, but notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. THF (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: some of the sources mentioned but not in the article when I nominated it make my nomination one of a Weak Delete. We've deleted people more notable than Cynamon, but we've kept people less notable than him. THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete having notable clients doesn't make you notable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Leaning towards Keep. I recommend More Discussion First. I find 76 google news sources: [100], and by searching for "cynamon lawyer" I get 125: [101]. I think we need to establish not only that this article is not adequately sourced, but that it cannot be sourced. Are any of those sources actually written primarily about this man? Or do they only mention him in association with notable clients. I don't want to be hasty here. This man seems to have received a lot of press. He is often quoted in mainstream media outlets AND his clients are notable. Nor is his press coverage from any one case, but he's had high-profile cases in a number of different areas. Cazort (talk) 18:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - How is the subject notable? Notability is not inherited. The subject's notability arises from the notability of his client, not from the work of the subject. The fact that he has been working for 30 years in civil litigation shows experience, but is not any more notable that anyone else who has worked for that length of time. --Yachtsman1 (talk) 05:36, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I say he is notable through his legal work which has attracted sustained media attention over many years in a variety of areas.
I would agree with you, Yachtsman, if this man were only known for one high-profile case, but I have found a number of totally independent high-profile cases: the Kuwaiti prisoners at Guantanamo bay, a racial bias cases involving Texaco and Circuit City: [102], [103], a rather interesting case (in terms of "firsts") involving satellites: [104], cases on Veterans, some corporate stuff. The list goes on.
The bottom line here is that there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources. This is the fundamental basis of WP:Notability. The fact that no articles are written exclusively about this man himself is offset by the fact that he is quoted in dozens of articles, often extensively, and over a fairly long period of time, in mainstream media outlets, in the context of his legal work. The more I look into these sources in detail, the more I am convinced we should Keep this. I am changing my opinion to a Strong Keep on the basis of my reading the sources in more depth. Cazort (talk) 16:15, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Response There are sources that provide coverage for his clients, perhaps, but not for him. The cites you povide are for archives of the LATimes and Washington Times from 1996 and 1986, the articles themselves not listed except by abstract. I looked at your other cites, and found no evidence of the coverage you allege show coverage over time with extensive quotes from the subject. Perhaps you can show me where these are and the cites? Other cites include links to legal opinions, which would name the subject as counsel (requiring a subscription). Indeed, after looking at your links in greater depth, I am even more assured that the subject is not notable. 3 links are as I pointed out earlier, and 76 links are to cases in which the subject argued as counsel available to an attorney with a Pacer account, or through Lexis. My vote is unchanged.--Yachtsman1 (talk) 18:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
About the Guantanamo case, the most detailed coverage is this washington post interview: [105], fox news: [106], MSNBC: [107]. In the veterans cases: [108], [109] I can't access the full articles for any of the articles on the bias or satellite cases, but I think they do contribute to establishing notability. Just because a source is not available online doesn't mean it's not valid as a source!!!
I also want to express, it's a little unclear to me why everyone is arguing to delete here. This discussion is starting to look more and more to me like everyone is simply asserting "Not notable, not notable". I'm not getting where that's coming from. In particular, the sentence that I feel is the key issue here which no one has really refuted, is "there's more than enough material to write a fairly extensive article on this man using reliable independent sources". Isn't that what the deletion discussion is about? Cazort (talk) 21:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because notability is not inherited, and you keep directing us to interviews about the subject's clients. In other words, you are making the argument more clear. The subject's notability arises from his actions in representing his client, not from independent sources showing why he is independently notable. The links should be within the article for each client, not under a separate page about the attorney.Yachtsman1 (talk) 21:33, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A notable lawyer is notable through his or her legal work. How else is a lawyer to be notable as a lawyer? It sounds like you're defining notability in such a way that no lawyers would be notable as lawyers.
More Sources This article: [110] covers David J. Cynamon in some depth, providing an independent source for some of the basic background information as well as providing an argument for notability, in the context of him receiving an award (for the cases I mentioned above). A second source for the same reward says he has been recognized for his "outstanding civil rights contributions": [111], in reference to multiple cases including the Circuit City and Guantanamo cases. Cazort (talk) 23:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He won an award for pro bono and civil rights work in 2008. That's great, but how does this make him notable? A notable lawyer gains notability not because he represents people, but because he or she does something outside of that area that gains notability. He must have done something such as: (1) significant works of legal scholarship (like writing the leading work on the Federal Rules of Evidence, for instance); (2) becoming a Judge or head of a legal services corporation; (3) gaining notability for his actions separate and apart from representing a notable client (a movie being made about him, a book being written about him, etc.). Representing people in court is typical for laywers, even for 35 years, but it's not "notable". How do I know this? Simple - I'm a lawyer, and so is THF. I hope that answers your question.Yachtsman1 (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It sounds to me like you're using the word notable in the common usage sense, not WP:Notable. Your idea that a lawyer cannot be notable from representing people is entirely in conflict with wikipedia's policy of notability--which says that the lawyer would be notable through representing people if the representing receives significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Wikipedia has nothing about certain activities counting or not counting more than others. Nor do I think that you (or anyone) being a lawyer makes you any more qualified to judge what lawyers should or shouldn't be included on wikipedia. I know that personally, I have executed very bad judgment in past deletion discussions, when it has come to judging the notability of mathematicians and statisticians, in spite of me knowing much more about which scholarly publications, awards and recognitions, appointments, etc. mean more. I almost think that I may even have a conflict of interest there...too easy to either want to promote my own field or to judge others as not worthy of inclusion just because I know I myself am not notable, or maybe because I'm scared I am notable and don't want the exposure of having a page written on me. I dunno...I just don't think that's a valid argument. Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. For what it's worth, I have a wider circle for notability than Yachtsman. I'd consider substantial independent biographical coverage about a lawyer in the Legal Times or American Lawyer or lay newspapers sufficient, without requiring books being written about the lawyer.
The award in question isn't independently notable; a quick run-through of some recent award winners shows no one with a Wikipedia article, much less a Wikipedia article that mentions the award: it seems to be the sort of award given to two big law-firm partners a year to encourage their firms to buy a couple of tables at a dinner. (In this case, the award was given by WLC to someone who sits on the WLC Board, so the newsletter about the award doesn't even count as substantial independent coverage.) The DC Bar magazine, which is thrown away mostly unread by its 90,000 involuntary subscribers every month, is essentially reprinting a WLC press release.
I don't think the Circuit City case where he's quoted by the LA Times is notable. [Lowery v. Circuit City] isn't a big precedent-setting case, and the plaintiffs had a "low degree of success." THF (talk) 01:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding of WP:Notability is that it doesn't matter whether a person is a big-shot, but it matters whether they have received enough coverage to have an article written solely on the basis of material that is available from reliable independent sources. I am seeing more than enough of such material and such sources here. I also feel like no one has refuted my argument that a meaningful article could be written using exclusively data from sources that meet wikipedia's guidelines. Maybe this would potentially open the door for hundreds of pages on lawyers. So what? The fact is...this guy is a guy I can imagine (myself and others) looking up on wikipedia. When I see a lawyer mentioned in the news I often think--who is this guy? What's his history? What does he do? And I often look him up on wikipedia. I see this topic as enriching wikipedia in some minor but important way. I maintain Keep. If an administrator wants to close this discussion, that's fine, but it will be done with me being a strongly dissenting opinion. I see nothing gained by excluding this topic from wikipedia and something potentially lost. Cazort (talk) 04:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if I am being too snarky!!! Cazort (talk) 05:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note, this is not a vote. Also, I keep reflecting on this and I think it would be useful here if the people disagreeing with me could point out explicitly what is it about the wikipedia notability guideline that is not met here. The guideline WP:N reads: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." Furthermore it reads ""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive." We're clearly in the "less than exclusive" here but I'd hardly call the coverage I am seeing trivial, and I certainly do not think any original research is needed to bring out enough facts to write a modest-sized article. I also was concerned/unclear about your arguments being based on [is not inherited], so I read these guidelines, and I'm not convinced that you all are interpreting this in the proper way. Every example given on that guideline is based on people making arguments based on association. The argument I am making here is based on multiple sources that name and quote this man, describe his actions, etc. And as I said above it's not based on a single case but he has been covered in other ones too? Cazort (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What are these "standards" you speak of? Are there any wikipedia guidelines you can reference here? This is looking increasingly irrational to me, people seem to be refusing to actually engage any of the points I'm making. Cazort (talk) 19:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 18:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior-Protecting America's Abused Children

[edit]
AfDs for this article:
Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior-Protecting America's Abused Children (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article was started with the name of an organization, "Protecting America's Abused Children". The creator has moved it, but it is still mainly about the organization, which is doing a research project that now forms the title of the article. Either way, there is a complete lack of notability here. Article creator has removed the prod but has not responded directly to the request to produce references to establish notability. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 23:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be an appearence of stalking and harrassing by you and you only. There has been an effort to adapt to your concerns as expressed on the talk page. The subject of the article is one thing which the title can be changed if that is what you want..I have asked you to advise without response in regards to broadening the subject by changing the title.
'Protecting America's Abused Children' is both an organization and a social concern within the study.
As an organization, 'Protecting America's Abused Children' is one of many organizations researching around behavioral economics and indigence some of which are referenced in the article.
I encourage others to contribute to the subject, but how can anyone contribute if you continue to obstruct any progress?Other research studies by organizations and contributions relevant to the 'Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior' and protecting America's abused children and solving the problem associated with the issues are more than welcome as they should be.
If for the reasons you intially expressed until 'notable' change have been made it is boing down to what can or cannot acceptable in your opinion.
Rather than play games in response to trying to comply with your concerns by throwing up barriers, why don't you make a constructive suggestion for resolving your problem?
Please consult with others and advise as to what would be acceptable for the benefit of the subject.
If you can not advise constructively, and you arbitrarily delete the article despite trying to resolve this matter because you can you and your actions need to be thorughly investigated.
As said before, I am trying to work with you...not play games! Please advise as requested.
--Nvkorruption (talk) 23:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, I can't arbitrarily/unilaterally delete the article. Others will show up here at some point. Please don't delete content of this page. If you want to withdraw your contributions (not those of others), you can strike them, like this (click edit to view code). Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 00:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see how this is a notable concept at all (besides it being an awkward search term in the first place). I cannot find any relevant hits--though that seems, initially, difficult to judge since there are a couple of very frequently occurring terms in the phrase. But there are no references to this article at all (except for one dictionary definition--and I know what "indigence" means, thanks--and one link to an article about growth and poverty), and the article reads like a brochure by an advocacy group. The use of the phrase as a "research term" is not verified by citing a single research paper that uses it as a research term: the only occurrence of the phrase (with quotes) on the entire World Wide Web is this WP article. Drmies (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a wretched-written under-referenced essay about a non-notable organization and a neologistic term. Majoreditor (talk) 03:41, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Firstly, Wikipedia isn't a repository for research papers. Secondly, the phrase Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior-Protecting America's Abused Children doesn't exist anywhere on Google expect for this article; neither does Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior. The article states that this is a research term, but as far as I can see, none of the sources use it. Whilst Google isn't the be-all and end-all of searching, especially academia, the lack of sources provided by the article doesn't give me any cause to think this is notable. Provide independent sources that demonstrate that Economics of Indigence Culture and Behavior, and i'll reconsider. --GedUK  13:40, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all comments above demonstrating this is not a "research term" that has wide enough use to establish WP:Notability. Cazort (talk) 18:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Majoreditor, it's poorly written and under-referenced. tedder (talk) 06:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Wiki-obnosis
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2009_March_13&oldid=1142644224"