Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 May 3

< 2 May	4 May >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Armenia–South Africa relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. The South African govt lists no state visits nor bilateral meetings between the 2 countries. [1] LibStar (talk) 23:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative keep until someone actually looksand find that there is no material. There are probable commercial relations to be discussed at the least. DGG (talk) 02:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Google news search shows up hardly anything [2]. LibStar (talk) 02:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. Edison (talk) 03:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've done the relevant searches and nothing turned up. There's an Armenian Society in SA, but aside from violating WP:SELFPUB, it doesn't tell us much. Thus, with no reliable, significant coverage, we should delete. - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the usual reasons. JJL (talk) 03:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin, editor has the exact same comments in 3 other AfDs. [3][4][5][6] Ikip (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Libstar's Google search (such searches should be conducted before articles are nominated for deletion through). Nick-D (talk) 05:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete According to this unsourced stub, the Armenian diplomat responsible for tending this relationship lives in Cairo, about 4,000 miles from Pretoria. His south african counterpart has a slightly easier commute from kiev, where he's based, a mere 1,000 miles from the Armenian capital city of Yerevan. I can find no sources that discuss this relationship in any way that would establish it as a notable encyclopedic topic.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdraw nomination due to new sources being added to the article to the point in which he meets WP:GNG. Leaving this open would probably lead to WP:SNOW, so I'll do the right thing and close it. Tavix | Talk 23:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Rundgren[edit]

A minor league baseball player who played for a AAA team, and currently plays for a AA team, two levels short of the major leagues . There is nothing significant of his career yet and he isn't notable for anything else. As such, he fails WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. A PROD tag removed by the author without any reason given. Tavix | Talk 23:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Todd Rundgren.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't Colorado Rockies minor league players be a better option if you are voting to merge? Borgarde (talk) 08:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve. In addition to the Las Vegas Review-Journal piece already cited in the article,[7], he's also been the subject of full profiles in the Tulsa World[8], Honolulu Star-Bulletin[9], Chicago Tribune[10], Sacramento Bee[11], and Miami Herald[12], among others, and thus satisfies the general notability guideline. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per HBWS's extra sources, several of which I've now added to the article. Easily passes WP:GNG.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And boo to the Honolulu Star-Bulletin for putting the Rex the Runt theme song earworm into my brain today. Aargh!)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Minor League All-Star with experience at AAA. Several good sources in the article that satisfy notability guidelines. Spanneraol (talk) 15:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Rachel Corrie#Reactions, on 22 March 2009, per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie. Over a month has gone by. Closing this second, superfluous, inappropriate, Afd as a formality. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie[edit]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie was closed on March 22nd with a decision to merge to Rachel Corrie. At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 16, the decision was endorsed. Attempts to force merger were disputed here and here. Since the article was moved to this new title, people claim that it deserves a second hearing (a second DRV seems nonsensical so a second AFD). In my mind, these changes clearly aren't an attempt to merge and don't look like an attempt at a new article. Suggest deletion and mean it this time. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above If I left the page as it is and create a new page, actually only that would be deceitful and cheating. I moved the page, and created a title in the main discussion page, letting other editors know what I am doing. That is how you or anyone else learned it already. If I didn't move the page with new content, and just create a new page, near noone would know it.

I let other users know what I was doing publicly in main discussion page, so I wasn't trying to hide anything from anyone in the first place. You try a bit hard on trying to make me seem bad, yet at original deletion talk Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie majority of votes was in favor of creating a new Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie page, including 2 of the dedicated page editors, along with some other editors, admins advised me the same. I may know rules more or less, but that was exactly what I was trying to do. The article still needs a lot wikifying, yet that work belongs to all main page editors too, not only me, and without collaborative work it cannot be accomplished. While the new article is still in progress, you and another editor acted so swift on getting it deleted without discussing with me, before even the article gets shaped by other editors. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and merge. A lot of the material is unnecessary detail, and replicates material in the articles about the plays or that is already in her main article. What is useful and unique can be merged into Rachel Corrie. Fences and windows (talk) 23:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all main idea behind creating page is collecting relevant info in detail in sub page, and clearing out the main page from some of the content in a summary style. But if no colloborative help come on the article, it takes time to do such extensive work, also I cannot do that without consent of the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it a little difficult to claim when you are reverting every attempt to cut text out? Summarizing does include removing text as well as adding, correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:37, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added text into public reactions page, when the article gets complete, then info from the main article could be summarized. I hadn't done any summarizing job yet, I couldn't even complete the article fully. Main article is building consensus and work of many editors, not only me.

Again accusing talk, but which edits you refer to. Lots of editors helped on minor parts. Some others try to take out big context with wrong claims. Only undo I did were removal of a site that contains memorial poems, Patti Smith's criticizing quote on Israel's cluster bomb usage claiming they are not relevant, yet they were related directly. Another edit I undid was removing the complete title "Requiem for Rachel Corrie (Mioritza)" along with its whole context with no explanation, I may be right or wrong, yet "when you are reverting every attempt to cut text out" is obviously not true, can you prove your accusations first, so I can reply them more clearly. Actually I need a lot of help by other users, especially for wikifying the article. Kasaalan (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to this comment, "Patti Smith's criticizing quote on Israel's cluster bomb usage" is completely irrelevent to an article supposed to be about reactions to Rachel's death, and merely supports my view that this article is a coatrack for anti-Israel propaganda. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Moving a page is not the way to escape the conclusion of a reviewed AfD. Bongo matic 23:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, the notice at top of Talk:Rachel Corrie links to the page history of Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie which was moved to Public Reaction's to Rachel Corrie's Death moved to Public reactions to Rachel Corrie's death moved to here. Should someone fix or simplify the GFDL headaches in case someone actually does want the prior history. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Hideous Act Involved As the User Implied Above I replied above on moving page. The user tries to build a prejudice on me, by implying I was doing hideous acts. That is on the contrary. In deletion review majority of votes in favor of either keeping the page, or creating a new title. So I tried to create a new title, trying to include parts missing as I advised and criticized on the deletion talk. Kasaalan (talk) 00:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

You seemed to have had a distinct habit of reverting attempt after attempt after attempt after attempt to get the page cut down in any manner for a merger. Add in serious bad faith here (even if not to me in particular) and even though you have notified everyone at Talk:Rachel Corrie about each step, to claim we must still wait for "devoted editors", ignoring the actual discussion there, the implications aren't difficult to see. ~~I hate to resort to silly ad hominems as well, but your user page indicates at least a little bias.~~ -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that last part. That was out of line. I didn't mean to imply anything by the page moves (there were just minor changes clearly), but if it's another redirect, I hope the closing admin considers figuring out some way to clear that up. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have only edited the article 2 times in its entire history. Also you only barely contributed to the article discussions, and I have serious doubts if you have ever read the article completely even once. But since you haven't spent much time on editing the article, research or talk page discussions, it may not be your fault to don't know who I meant. There are some devoted editors of the page, who spent their recent months with discussing and improving the article to its current level. Between December 2008 and March 2009, especially Arimareiji, Ironduke, PR, Untwirl, NSH001, Wehwalt, Tiamut and me had various weeks long debates over various issue for improving the article, who also put their effort in editing, one way or another according to their own approach. Of course there are other editors but these are the most active ones in recent 6 months. Kasaalan (talk) 10:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about accusations, as long as I reply them nothing is out of line, yet they simply not proves any bad faith at all. If I had bad faith I would do other way around actually. First of all let me clear one part, my edits was not meant to be a merge to main page at all. I didn't ignore AFD, just tried to act accordingly. That was the whole point of creating a new page. I just try to follow a consensus, and a compromising approach with others' thoughts. Redirects are easy to handle, but creating a page, or merging it takes a lot of work and discussion. Kasaalan (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on your talk page. This probably isn't appropriate here, but like I said before, given that your reversions of any edit by anyone else all with the merge notice on the top of the page (after the DRV too), I don't find your claim that you weren't just ignoring the AFD serious. Also, you've spent months arguing that you want the editors you approve to edit the article and they just don't seem interested. At some point, other people's views matter too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even you voted otherwise, you stated some opinions in deletion talk that might be considered in favor of creating a new public reactions page. That was while I was creating the new page, I assumed it was a general consensus including even yours. I wasn't ignoring AFD, I defended the article should be stay as a standalone article, the verdict was merge, but near all of the editors suggested, a new public reactions page is possible including deletion and deletion review admins, and 2 of the active editors.

I don't know the rules much, but before the merge done, I felt redirecting was not right. Yes noone did the merging, but it requires hard and more than 1 editor work. The redirector, just happened to do that after a short while of my edits in another page. There is nothing called editors I approved, I included the most active editors from various and opposing views of mine and each other in the main article page. But again if you haven't read the previous 6 month discussions I referred, you may not know. Kasaalan (talk) 11:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except you didn't edit the main article (other than this and this revert) to include any content. You were adding content to this one. You both reverted people's attempt to work on the main article, and you reverted people's attempts to work on this article. As I said at the prior AFD, I didn't think the separate article was necessary and just a straight redirect make sense, as did the admin who closed the AFD and one other. I'm excluding the admin who enacted the protection to keep it redirected. At the same time, I undid my own redirect and opened it up for another AFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you count 75 as 2, but I have done more than 75 edits, Rachel Corrie page history, as you can clearly see. Even multiple times more research, and discussion talk of 3-4 archive page length. It is clear that, you making these false claims, because you didn't participated in the discussions or editing of the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 12:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce and Merge per User:Fences and windows.--brew crewer (yada, yada) 01:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
merge the material from the deleted article here and keep, possibly under a modified title. I think it would be well to have this second article.; there is enough material. DGG (talk) 02:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - actually, this article seems acceptable to me. A merge would be possible, but Rachel Corrie is already a long article with an extensive 'reactions' section; so, a spin-off article like this one might be justified. It's certainly very comprehensive, although it does duplicate some information already in the Rachel Corrie article; I'd actually recommend merging some content from that article into this one, rather than the other way around. Robofish (talk) 02:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I count only 3 deletes in the previous AfD and 1 merge (Not to mention 5 keeps). Two of the users who voted delete complained about the article not being balanced. Kasaalan has addressed this issue by adding incidents of negative reactions. Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All that may be true, but this would not seem to be the appropriate venue for addressing these points. DRV upheld the deletion. Bongo matic 09:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Just checked the DRV page. Noticed on the same page, right on top of this article, a closed DRV for the kept List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck". Yeah, I am going to rely on DRV participants to make the right decisions. Um no. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 21:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review is merely about reviewing if an admin closed an AFD correctly; it is not about whether articles should be kept or deleted. The AFD in question for that article does show a clear consensus to keep, so the DRV participants did judge that correctly and your point is irrelevant. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is irrevelant to you because you are missing the point. My point isn't about "other stuff exists", it is about whether or not DRV results are useful for reevaluating an article for deletion or inclusion. Again you only strengthened my point about the use of DRV results by pointing out the purpose of the DRV. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, results at DRV are useful - e.g. for showing the result of the AFD about the previous article with largely the same content was "merge", and it was a valid result. It has not been shown why that decision, which was reached through consensus and found to be accurately interpreted at DRV, is suddenly now wrong and the article warrants keeping. Nothing has changed, aside from a couple of token additions to supposedly address bias. Somno (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you believe those voting in DRVs do not review the article (if kept) or whether the subject warrants an article, but instead are just reviewing the admin's judgment, on whether s/he acted correctly on the AfD's votes? If this is how a DRV is run, then your claim only strengthens my point that results of DRVs should not be taken into consideration. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a matter of what I "believe"; Deletion Review's purpose is clearly stated at the DRV page: "Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly". Whether an article should exist is determined at AFD. The original AFD determined that the spin-off article should be merged with the original article, and the DRV confirmed that the decision was correct. So yes, your off-topic point that other stuff exists is irrelevant to the debate here. Somno (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would urge, indeed beg, all editors to read policies before quoting them. I quote WP:NOTNEWS in full:Wikipedia considers the historical notability of persons and events. News coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, but not all events warrant an encyclopedia article of their own. Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article. Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event, our coverage of that individual should be limited to the article about that event, in proportion to their importance to the overall topic. (See Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for more details.) While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews. Furthermore, Wikipedia articles should not list frequently asked questions (FAQs). Instead, format the information provided as neutral prose within the appropriate article(s). See also: Wikipedia:News articles Not relevant. Fences and windows (talk) 21:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a closing time of this voting. Kasaalan (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After 7+ days usually. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. Kasaalan (talk) 22:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A significant enough topic for an article. This shouldn't really be contentious. Ian Pitchford (talk) 12:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is clearly a notable and significant topic, with much relevant material. It would be inappropriate to merge this into Rachel Corrie, since that would unbalance the article. RolandR (talk) 12:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep This is Articles for Deletion which, per WP:BEFORE, is only for hopeless cases, not huge articles on notable topics with dozens of sources. Please take it to Mergers for Discussion. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Relevant stuff already at main article so merger not necessary. --Anarchodin (talk) 14:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep My vote is keep, as presumed, yet if some of the more experienced editors of the main page help, the quality of the article will be apparently higher. Kasaalan (talk) 17:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only issue with have to analyse concerns the wikipedia rules. For what concerns deletion, the question is : "is the topic relevant ?". With the high numbers of sources that are provided and given the big size of the article when nothing in it that seems not required, I think the answer is "yes". I also wonder where it is between B and GA class... Ceedjee (talk) 18:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In relation to the Good article criteria, in my humble opinion it fails 1b) because lists aren't incorporated; 2b) because many unreliable sources are used (especially primary sources); 2c) because much of it is original research (e.g. which songs are "notable"); 3b) because the detail is excessive; 4) because it is a biased coatrack; and 5) because there is obviously an ongoing content dispute or this AFD wouldn't exist. So I'd say it's a long way from GA. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If it fails GA, it is because the GA focuses on lists and not articles, not because the article would not be good. Let's rather say Wikipedia:Featured lists then. Ceedjee (talk) 09:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Rachel Corrie article already discusses the subject of these "reactions" at greater length than is necessary. We already know that her death was a very sad event, and a separate article cataloging every theatrical production or song by minor artists that have been written on the subject, adds nothing. In fact I think that the content of this article is what should constitute a trivia section of the Rachel Corrie article, and that WP:TRIVIA applies. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 18:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have listened near every song in that list except 1 or 2, and I can clearly say there is no minor artist in the list, maybe some artists local and not-so-famous over the world or don't have wikipedia pages, but the notability isn't limited to being famous. For example, The Gram Partisans, and The Zachary Jones band are not so famous, yet they have 2 of the best songs of the list exceptionally high quality, that are even publicly available for free. So claiming them minor is not true. Also most of the songs even have a place in itunes store, so they did not come out of nowhere. The notability should be more relevant to the quality of work, than being famous. Kasaalan (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are rules on primary sources versus secondary specifically because we can arguments forever about this exact sort of thing. Generally, I assume we go above mere existence. Like I said in the last AFD, a link to the iTunes music store searching for "Rachel Corrie" shouldn't be how we determine notability. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the references, you can see there is no doubt the songs exist, for most of the sources I used more references. Itunes store used mostly for proving track length and some other details, along with commercial availability of the songs. Kasaalan (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should discuss this elsewhere, but like I said before, I don't doubt the songs exists. I'm not challenging you on that. However, not everything that merely exists belongs here. There has to be a bit more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I am sorry, Kasaalan, but you are not (as far as I know) a WP:reliable source to determine the level of notability of these artists. But even if every artist was as famous as George Gershwin and Tennessee Williams, it would still constitute nothing more than WP:trivia: ie a "list of miscellaneous facts". I note that you wrote, above, "I have listened near every song in that list". That is exactly the problem. In most cases such lists are deleted from articles; but you, instead, elevated this list to its own article. That was not a good idea. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply In WP:trivia it says

Not all list sections are trivia sections Main article: Wikipedia:Embedded list

In this guideline, the term "trivia section" refers to a section's content, not its name. A trivia section is one that contains a disorganized and "unselective" list. However, a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information.

Also there is even a Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates that even lists List of United States Military Academy alumni (Superintendents) or List of New Jersey County Colleges.

The main reason the song listing is not trivia is over 6 years more than 30 artist-groups wrote songs for Rachel Corrie, because they support her actions, and share her political beliefs or feel bad over her tragic death. Writing a song, is one of the best ways of expressing a public reaction, like a painting. Won't you add Guernica_(painting) painting of Picasso for the Bombing of Guernica#Picasso's Painting article. It is easy to understand that when you read the lyrics. This is a major part of the article, that cannot be considered as trivia. Kasaalan (talk) 22:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even List of films that most frequently use the word "fuck" exists as an article, which I support keeping too. Yet why a much more important, and reliable table of the tribute songs, should be deleted. Kasaalan (talk) 22:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But the article isn't "List of songs that support Rachel Corrie." It's supposed to be about the public reaction to her, and just listing every single thing that mentions her isn't a general article about the reaction but a mere list. There must be some attempt at summarizing information. The issue is we don't have that many secondary sources (i.e. someone NOT the artist or related to the cause) describing the general view of music supporting her. There's plenty of sources of that type at the main article, not here. The Guernica article links to a secondary source, PBS in this case, that is discussing the painting and its relationship. You are arguing that our personal views should be the determination of what's included and that's just not feasible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Rachel Corrie is notable. Some of the items listed in the Public reactions article are definitely notable. However, most of it is just trivial information, which would be great on a personal website or Rachel Corrie tribute site, but not in an encyclopedia. For example, is it notable that Lorcan "Larry" Otway wrote two songs about Rachel? No. Who cares if Holly Gwinn Graham wrote a song? Lyra and Friends? I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch in the House? These songs and artists are not notable in any way and are the songs are not mentioned in independent, reliable sources. That they are for sale in iTunes or mentioned on the artist's website is irrelevant – they are not third-party sources that establish any notability for the songs. That they are important and great songs in Kasaalan's view (and they might be great songs; I haven't listened to the songs so I'm judging on encyclopedic importance alone, not my personal opinion of the music), does not influence whether they should be mentioned in the encyclopedia. The poems and memorial cards are also trivial. Then there are other problems with the article, such as the huge rehashing of the article for The Skies are Weeping and the repetition in the Notes section. These problems can be fixed, but they are representative of the larger issues – that "there is too much information to be incorporated in the main article" is false. There is too much irrelevant, non-notable information to be incorporated into the main article, but if only the notable information was mentioned in the main article, there would not be an issue. The token representation in this article of a few "negative" items is just that – token representation in the hope the article's bias will be overlooked. Like the previous AFD determined, this article is still a POV pro-Rachel fork. Rachel's death is sad, and her life is notable. However, Wikipedia is not a Rachel fansite. Somno (talk) 02:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually your arguments are false, being notable and being famous are totally different, as mentioned in relevant wiki guidelines. Not having a wiki article, does not mean anything but users haven't created one yet. Lorcan "Larry" Otway, I Can Lick Any Sonofabitch in the House or any other singers-groups in the list are professional musicians, that produce CDs for music market, that is enough to be mentioned in the article with a 1 line. They don't consume much space than that anyway. The most certain public reaction over a death, is creating a song, which is relevant to the title. Kasaalan (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list of songs in memoriam of Rachel Corrie cannot be considered as POV in any way, also a simple list that don't have any arguments let alone POV ones, cannot be referred as biased. Your arguments isn't even near the truths. Kasaalan (talk) 19:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree with your application of WP:NM here. An article mentioning non-notable figures isn't a criterion of deletion, at least not indicated in that guideline you cited. If the subject of the article is not notable, then WP:Notability comes into play. But as you said Rachel Corrie is notable. Furthermore, the notion that the existence of this article means Wikipedia is a Rachel fansite is absurd and worst case logical fallacy. Please avoid it for future debates. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 05:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Rachel is notable. Every small fact ever remotely associated with Rachel is not notable, and that's the difference. Of course the article's existence doesn't mean Wikipedia is a Rachel fansite (that would be absurd), but the obsessively-detailed level of content in the article would only be suitable for a Rachel fansite, not an encyclopedia. Somno (talk) 06:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies, there is no restriction against mentioning everything there is to know about a subject. The subject is Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie, naturally it is going to include all known incidents of public reaction. The argument that this articles covers everything related to this subject is a particulary weak if not counterproductive argument for deletion. Find a new one --Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm familiar with Wikipedia policies. There is a restriction against mentioning every tiny thing in an encyclopedia - it's called common sense, but in a Wikipedia guideline and policy sense, it also involves undue weight, avoiding trivia, and most importantly, verifying information through independent, reliable sources. The fact that you are only attempting to rebuff one part of my argument does not mean that only one part exists. I have stated my reasons for deletion, and they're there for the closing admin to evaluate. Somno (talk) 06:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)'[reply]

Here is a featured list article : List of Kylie Minogue concert tours. All the arguments you have given would lead to its deletion : the level of sources are the same and no concert is notable by itself. That is just the way list topics are dealts that must be considered different as the way usual articles are. Ceedjee (talk) 10:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But this isn't a list. It's supposed to be a split from the Reactions section of an article. Shouldn't it then be more akin to an article than a list? If people want a straight list, call it "List of songs attributed to Rachel Corrie" and do whatever you want. Besides, isn't all this a discussion for the article talk page afterwards anyways? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look Wikipedia:Featured list candidates. All "lists" don't have the word "list" in the name of the article.

anyway, the title could be "list of the public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie".

Ceedjee (talk) 16:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is they categorically try to erase complete article, first they say the list is not relevant, then they say delete that list because it is not relevant, then they will possibly say there is not much info in this article so merge it into main article. Kasaalan (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Falastine wrote: "Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies". Falastine, which WP policy are you referring to? It is usual, when citing a WP policy, to name it, and to give a link to it. For example, when I said the article has obvious problems with WP:TRIVIA , and gave a quote: "Avoid creating lists of miscellaneous facts." General statements about what you happen to think is WP policy is not convincing. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC

My point is there is NO restriction supported by policy against having detailed content containing everything known about the subject. Somno's claim that articles cannot contain non-notable people, incidents, and items is not backed up by policy. I disagree with the application of WP:undue as well, since WP:Undue applies to viewpoints and giving each viewpoint their proportionate due. I don't see a convincing argument as to how this applies to the article. Why you brought up WP:Trivia is beyond me. The quote you cited is counteractive to your point. Micellaneous facts means that they don't have a place in any of the important sections (Biography, history, origin, etc.) and thus are grouped together in a trivia section. With that being said, it would be clearly ridiculous to suggest that Public reactions to death of Rachel Corrie is a list of miscellaneous facts because the reactions are obviously the focal point of the article. I ask you to seriously familiarize yourself with WP:Trivia before bringing it up again for future debates. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The original content of this article was what amounted to a trivia section of the Rachel Corrie article. Making that into its own article is absurd. WP:Trivia certainly applies. Moreover the name of the article is a deception because the "public reactions" to her death was covered by the news media. This article is just a list of non-notable individuals in the performing arts who wrote non-notable plays and non-notable songs about a girl who is notable only for her death. This article just collects these non-notables into a list, a list of non-notables in the performing arts who have seized on the sad event of this girl's much publicized death in the hope that it was something bankable. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, as you should know already, the previous article was called Artistic Tributes to Rachel Corrie, but a new name was chosen to reflect an article that now contains negative incidents. Request a move if you have a problem with the title. The only thing of WP:trivia that applies here is Wikipedia:Trivia#Not all list sections are trivia sections: "a selectively populated list with a relatively narrow theme is not necessarily trivia, and can be the best way to present some types of information." Obviously the incidents are under one narrow theme. Refer to real trivia sections to get a sense as to what trivia sections really are. Your allegation against the artists is pointless. Leave it out. -Falastine fee Qalby (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Second choice is merge. This is a POV fork, plain and simple. Corrie has borderline notability because of one event. Wikipedia is not a place to report on the coverage of her death. This was already decided in an AfD and I don't see why we have to go through it all over again because a POV edit warrior refuses to accept the result of the first AfD. Enigma^msg 18:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Only some users claimed it was a POV fork, most of the article only holds collected facts, which can only be considered as neutral. Kasaalan (talk) 19:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I add once again the information that in the Wikipedia:Featured list candidates there are articles that don't have the word list in their title and I give this exemple of featured list : List of Kylie Minogue concert tours for which I don't see any difference with the article we are currently discussing. I think the risk and the fear of seeing a pov-fork, because this article talks about Rachel Corrie, generate double standards. But please, read the content. There is absolutely nothing political in that article. It just gathers huge information that would not fit the main article, as many other list articles do. Ceedjee (talk) 07:12, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Other Similar Content Articles Exist Though I provide previously, there are a numerous other pages with similar content The Beatles Tributes, List of artistic depictions of and related to Pride and Prejudice, Artistic depictions of Bangladesh Liberation War, List of artistic depictions of Beowulf, List of artistic depictions of Grendel, List of artistic depictions of Grendel's mother the delete voters simply ignore. First they say the list of songs or theatre plays they say they are not encyclopedic maybe an artistic tributes page is, when I create an artistic tributes page they say it is not encyclopedic but maybe a public reactions page is, when I create a public reactions page as suggested they say it has much content to be deleted, and merged back into main article. But at least it is clear that we can create a sub page for the list of songs about Rachel Corrie as a subarticle after all these week long discussions. Kasaalan (talk) 09:54, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ceedjee, the difference with the "List of Kylie Minogue concert tours", inane though it is, it is a list connected to one artist who (aparently) has some notability. Some lists actually are important, such as List of elements by atomic number, but most seem silly and un-encyclopedic. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kasaalan, although other such articles exist, it does not follow that this article, or any of the others named, are valid. Your argument is a particular logical fallacy, sometimes called Appeal to Common Practice [13]. It is sometimes referred to here as WP:other crap. -- Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Extended content

Comment I assume it is called "Other stuff exists" and not any swear word. Second yes there are other pages exist does not help always, yet since other pages exist strongly under same policies, it is hard to believe the same rules applied to some particular pages but not to others. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Kylie Minogue and her tours are notable, as has been shown by multiple independent, reliable sources. You are comparing an article that lists (primarily) redlinked songs by self-published artists to an article that lists massive concert tours (Kylie's 2008 tour sold over 400,000 tickets) by a successful solo artist (aside from the millions of CDs and all the number one songs, she's been awarded an Order of the British Empire and Ordre des Arts et des Lettres for her services to music). I'm not sure why you are comparing the two articles Ceedjee. Kasaalan, it is not clear that you can create a "list of songs about Rachel Corrie" - it being used as an example does not equal an endorsement. Somno (talk) 11:53, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me state your comparison is wrong. Do Kylie Minogue has any tribute song to her name or beliefs, no. Do Rachel Corrie has yes over 30. Why Patti Smith did not make any song over Kylie Minogue or dedicated to her you assume. Even though Rachel Corrie is multiple times less famous then Kylie Minogue, she has a more notable political life and thoughts, and that is why over 30 songs dedicated to her internationally, by title and context, including world famous and not that famous artists. Kasaalan (talk) 20:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The "reaction to the death of Rachel Corrie" is a notable topic. Else, it would not be developed in a section of the article about Rachel Corrie !

Anyway, you compare Kylie Minogue to Rachel Corrie. That is not the point.

You have already admitted Rachel Corrie was notable here above.

All people interested by the Israeli Palestinian conflict will always be more interested by "the public reaction to the death of Rachel Corrie" than by the "tours of Kylie Minogue". That is the point. And this last one is a Featured List. So, there is no problem to keep this one that concerns Rachel Corrie.

Ceedjee (talk) 16:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A naked woman can get more attention then john lennon, if you only count the search results, or wide media coverage. But you cannot compare their works.

For this case it is a big deal more than 30 songs made on Rachel Corrie. I am not aware of anyone who recently lived has so many tribute songs on them.

Again notability comes from the quality of the song, the text the tune the producing, self publishing is an interesting claim all the artists in the table are professional musicians one way or another, lots of the artists mentioned are widely known internationally or locally like Patti Smith, yet some rest only gets 5 k page result when searched in google, but not 5 like they self published any song. Yet only expecting search results or widely known media to cover anything is a serious mistake. Though if you like to challenge the artists 1 by 1, I will also post reliable links for them 1 by 1. Since I only used the song references in table for particular info like track length or album name, there are even more sources for the artists' notability or background. Kasaalan (talk) 20:07, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also other pages exist may not be a term, yet lots and lots of other pages exist actually is, because it somehow shows the guidelines not applied as you claim to those articles by other users then you. So even Characters in Beowulf book deserves their own seperate pages, yet a collective list of dedicated songs to a notable person do not deserve a single page you claim, but that is not true. Kasaalan (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Rachel Corrie is not notable just because how she died, she is also notable because how she lived. And her own writings. If that would be the case, anyone got killed by IDF should have same attention worldwide, but that is not the case. Kasaalan (talk) 20:27, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think anyone is disputing whether Carrie is notable herself. That's clear. But Notability isn't inherited. She's notable and has an article. But every song about her isn't automatically notable simply because it's about her. That's not a standard anybody follows here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:51, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a very good point. Can those who are using the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument please stop distracting from the article being discussed here - there is no article similar to this that I am aware of, about someone who was tragically killed and notable due to the subsequent controversy (I can only think of people who were well known before their death, but I've probably forgotten others), so OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is even less relevant than it usually is. Why do these tributes deserve their own article? Why can't the important ones be covered inside the main article and the rest left for fan and memorial websites? Not every detail remotely related to someone is notable (Falastine, before you repeat your argument that there's no such policy, it's common sense and consensus shown elsewhere. We don't mention a notable person's favourite songs, childhood friends, college subjects, etc, unless directly relevant; we don't mention every book ever written about someone's life, every artist that's ever performed a cover version of a song, etc - we draw the line at the most important information to keep articles neutral, relevant, verifiable and non-trivial.) Somno (talk) 03:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You say WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not relevant because other similar manner articles not proves anything, but you also say it is "it's common sense and consensus shown elsewhere." If it is common sense shown elsewhere how lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS in the first place. I say lots of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS simply because you claim it is against wiki guidelines and policies to create such a page. Yet even Characters of Beowulf book deserves their own seperate pages, yet a collective list of dedicated songs to a notable person do not deserve a single page you claim.
In the Notability isn't inherited guideline it refers "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums."
Moreover Notability isn't inherited is about creating a seperate page for every detail related to a notable figure. But in this case we are not advocating seperate article for each song, but a table of collective songs. There is a huge difference between these terms. Kasaalan (talk) 09:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin: I had some concerns about canvassing as noted here. Nothing was settled, but I hope we can avoid repeating that discussion here, so I'm asking everyone else to just let me put this notification out there and leave it be. I'd rather have the closing admin know now rather than have an argument for DRV. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well. Of course this is a good reason for a future DRV given you didn't warn the other editors of your actions and it seems to me particularly uncivil not to have warned me given what your write on that page. For your information, but you could have asked me. I simply voted and argued strongly for to keep this article the first time it was deleted because I know the topic. But I am far to be on the keep side of the pov, given my mind, as any pro-Israeli, is that thas women is fully responsible of what happened to her. That is just a question of double standards not to apply. Ceedjee (talk) 10:58, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue wasn't you. The issue was someone notifying you, when you weren't involved in the article nor in the prior deletion discussions and why. There are policies in place because of concerns stemming from that. It's not typical for people to just randomly notify individuals who weren't at all involved in the article before and notify them about discussions. Maybe that doesn't concern you but it is an issue, especially with controversial articles. So you wanted me to warn you that someone else would bring up votestacking and I would ask about you? You are supposed to know why he would notify you? Kasaalan was fairly clear from the last AFD that he wasn't in any mood to talk with me without being completely accusatory, and what good would that do since I would have been there anyway. I informed him of the discussion. I asked outsiders for their views, since I don't edit here but I know the Arbitration Committee has some rules about this topic. Whatever, can we just drop it here and if you want to discuss it, go to that noticeboard where it belongs? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He stated

That's all I want. The discussion there seems somewhat settled anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ricky as I previously asked to you numerous times, can you possibly tell here publicly, if you have fully read the 2 articles yet, or still speculating without reading them fully. You have lots of clear false arguments, like number of my edits being 2 which are actually over 75, as I clearly proved wrong because you didn't read discussions and not familiar with content or edit history. You made no effort on discussing your concerns with other main page editors or with me, or attempted any improvement in the article before you nominated it for deletion. You also known I asked the single member that replied me back to read the articles before voting, because I don't want any politic vote.

Also if you were right about "your might-be-canvas-concern" I should have also left invitation for overturn keep voter if I had vote-in-the-bag approach. Why do you think I didn't do that. I posted messages on active project and main page editors, along with public announcements. But I will copy Alansohn's overturn reason from previous deletion review.

Overturn Deep down inside, before I saw the details, my personal political biases on the subject were assuming that this couldn't possibly merit a standalone article; This had to be a blatantly POV fork. In reviewing the article under discussion, I see clear encyclopedic handling of a topic that has received far more media coverage than I ever realized, providing several dozen reliable and verifiable sources to support the material in the article. In looking at the parent article, there is a section on tributes, and a merge would largely overwhelm the parent article. This is exactly what forks are for. The consensus in the AfD was extremely muddled, and while there were calls for a merge, there seems to be no way that the results of the AfD could have been read to support any one result, and least of all merge. I would suggest using a lower case "t" in the second word of the title. Alansohn

Moreover if you really bother to do a search, you can easily see I picked the editors to be noted, from project and main page discussions, not from Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Artistic_Tributes_to_Rachel_Corrie keep voters, if that would be the case, I would also notify alanshon, mgm or yamanam. You make every effort to spread your concerns everywhere systematically, and how do you expect me to not discuss it here.

I wanted this case to be discussed, by help of relevant editors, which are active main and project page editors apparently. Some dedicated delete or keep voters won't help the discussion anyway. Kasaalan (talk) 12:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm going to discuss this at ANI. This is diving further into personal issues, and I admit largely my fault. However, let me see if a neutral admin would have some ideas to keep this sensible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:17, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not right to discuss a page's existence with only afd watchers, and simply putting a link in the discussion page didn't lead much discussion about the content last time, but generally a keep or delete voting. I actually even suggest we should put a disclaimer in the main page. Kasaalan (talk) 12:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Responded here and to put it bluntly: if you want to change the entire AFD policy to one where the AFD is only legitimate when you decide, Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) is that way. Put whatever disclaimers you want on this page. The closing admin should rightly ignore all of them, and you can bring it up to DRV and argue these same points for a fourth time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to decide the existence of an article with afd watcher, and relevant editors from different parties together. Kasaalan (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge - not notable enough for its own article, IMO. --ThaddeusB (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep and edit. this article needs editing and trimming, but it is obviously notable ("has received significant coverage in reliable sources.") untwirl(talk) 14:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unanswered questions In the Notability isn't inherited guideline it refers "Often, a separate article is created for formatting and display purposes; however, this does not imply an "inherited notability" per se, but is often accepted in the context of ease of formatting and navigation, such as with books and albums." Am I getting it wrong, but the policies you push telling on contrary of your own claims. Kasaalan (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Merge While interesting this topic does not deserve its own article. It can easily be merged into the main article. Basket of Puppies 16:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete as recreation of an article decided to merge following a contentious debate. It's too soon to revisit the previous debate. This is nothing but an attempt to circumvent WP:DRV with more canvassing. Ray^Talk 16:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy close; as this is a redirect, it should be nominated at WP:RFD. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Partnership (UK)[edit]

There is no partnership law of the UK. There are three separate legal systems, one of which has substantially differing law on this business form. Lawdroid (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close AfD. This should be at WP:RFD. The target article (United Kingdom partnership law) can be re-nominated if necessary. Tevildo (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Causes of crime in Trinidad and Tobago[edit]

Essay - Does not demonstrate an expert or scholarly consensus - vaguely cited Greedyhalibut (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Crime in Trinidad and Tobago. Guettarda (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably a school assignment by a 14 year old student, User:BigBrain22. I don't see any material to merge, unless inline citations are provided. --J^mundo 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OR also you could substitute the name of almost any country and it would still be "true". Drawn Some (talk) 22:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete blatant WP:OR. LibStar (talk) 23:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not entirely OR since they appeared to have researched it, but the referencing is not sufficient and it could basically survive as Causes of crime since none of the reasons are country-specific but the article on Criminology already discusses causes of crimes. Perhaps we should redirect Causes of crime or expand the Crime article? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing in this article is specific to Trinidad and Tobago and the references aren't clear enough to verify the information. If causes are found that are particularly relevant to Trinidad & Tobago, they could be discussed in Crime in Trinidad and Tobago. Somno (talk) 06:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete all articles to the tune of Xth United States Congress - summary and Xth United States Congress - state delegation, as the consensus appears to apply to all articles of such a theme and not just the 46th Congress. This is license to delete these pages as CSD G6 "Housekeeping", assuming I do not get there first. —harej 11:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Xth United States Congress - political parties. —harej 11:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

46th United States Congress - summary[edit]

I'm AfDing all articles in the format "Xth United States Congress - summary" and "Xth United States Congress - state delegations". They are essentially direct copies of "Xth United States Congress" articles, and completely unneeded.

As an example, lets look at 46th United States Congress - state delegations, 46th United States Congress - summary and 46th United States Congress. The two spinoffs are almost identical information with different formatting; the summary is indeed not a summary at all, being around the same size as the central article. The summary contains almost identical information to the main article, almost word for word, while the state delegations article is simply the list of representatives/senators in the main article organised "list of delegates from state X (rep and senator)" rather than "list of senators from state X" "list of representatives from state X". This is meaningless and useless cruft. There is not even any evidence that the creator considers them viable; he as good as admitted that these articles were created as a place he could play with away from an editor he was in a dispute with.

Note to closing admin, if this closes as delete - I've avoided adding them all here because there are about 200 of the damn things. The format is summarised above, and all the articles are found in here, so it shouldn't be too hard to bag them all. Ironholds (talk) 03:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amendment - Xth United States Congress - Political parties added in. Ironholds (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't fault the nom. I also think that the actions in creating all these articles, seemingly out of annoyance, need looking at. There was some very good advice on the talkpage of the creator, saying that if all of these are necessary, then start with one, get that into a decent state, then move onto others. Quantpole (talk) 08:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, which is why I left it for a while - I wanted to whether the articles would turn into something useful. Rather than actually following my advice the creator instead created a new set of borderline useless pages. Ironholds (talk) 08:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Even the formatting is barely changed. I'm having a tough time finding substantive differences between the two. The whole point of the lead is to provide the summary, and I can't help and see how this needless forking improves the readability of the articles. It just creates more pages to patrol, synchronize, and look up when finding information. This is exactly the kind of clutter that hurts the usefulness of the project. Shadowjams (talk) 08:36, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can't see any point to them; as Ironholds points out, they're practically the same as the articles they were copied from. If the creator wants to continue with this, then suggest completing one to a fuller degree. Skinny87 (talk) 11:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, and I would also add "Xth United States Congress - political parties" to that mix, as that is yet another regurgitation of material already found in the "Xth United States Congress" articles.SPNic (talk) 13:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ As noted, this is a copy of 46th United States Congress with some minor alterations. A mass nomination of similarly created articles would be appropriate in this instance. Mandsford (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what I've done - there are about 200 of the damn things, so I decided against listing them all here. Ironholds (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all in favor of a mass nomination, but there is some red tape that you have to go through. I don't think we can vote to delete something that isn't on the list; nor do I think that you can list an article unless it's been tagged. This is the only one of those 200 that has a deletion tag. You might want to consult with an administrator for suggestions on shortcuts. I'm going to propose a shortcut below, don't care if I'm booed or hissed for this. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I consulted several; consensus was "how the heck are you going to list all of those" "They're all the same format, we'll work it like that and just list one" "okay". Ironholds (talk) 16:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete all "--th US Congress- summary" articles as G3, vandalism. Duplicating 200 or more articles that are 50+ KB is a massive waste of space. Mandsford (talk) 16:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't fall under G3 - vandalism is doing something with the intention to harm the wiki. The user in question wasn't trying to do that. Ironholds (talk) 11:15, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a matter of opinion. The user intended to to take up 10 megs for reasons all his own. Mandsford (talk) 12:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the whole lot. The summary of each article should be the first section, not a separate article. Article spin-offs should be more detailed, not less detailed. Also, WP:WHATAMESSTHISMAKES. Drawn Some (talk) 15:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete: I have talked with the major contributor, and the only reason he has made these pages is because of a small amount of information. He had added a little bit of factual information to the original article, only for it to be removed numerous times. He just got fed up and made a new page with the information in the original article plus his new information. If we could find this information, add it to the article; then delete it would be great.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Could that user be a bit more specific as to what he's added? I assume it was removed from the other pages for a reason; it may not be appropriate to include it (which seems fairly likely). Ironholds (talk) 23:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let alone whether it is appropriate or not to include the material, this process should not be a way to circumvent consensus. If the user thinks it should be included then there are various ways for it to be discussed. Creating a load of additional articles which then get merged is not the way to do it. Quantpole (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tottaly agree. This is not the way to go about getting information up, but the edtitor says he is not interested in "Wiki wars" he just wants to write about what he has learned as a historian. I have tried to get him to pinpoint which information was removed, but he has not been on since I last talked to him.--gordonrox24 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he can't locate where this information is then we're not going to keep 200 unneeded articles around until he works it out. He isn't interested in "wiki wars" good, but the correct response when faced with opposition is not to create your own set of pages where you can have eminent domain. I'm going to inform the user who thinks he had this dispute with Stiltim about this page - he might be able to remember what this "extra content" that he didn't include in the main article was. Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Delete per above and similar deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/56th United States Congress - summary.DCmacnut <> 20:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for reasons already stated. If the editor in question ever remembers the information he added and that he says was reverted at a regular article, he can discuss it there or at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress. -Rrius (talk) 11:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment[edit]

Having looked through Stilltim's contribution history, the edit history of the first of these articles he created, and of the article it was based on, I just don't find the protestations of having had a substantive distinction credible. The first article created was 50th United States Congress - summary. It had its genesis in a very short dispute at 50th United States Congress. As best I can tell, the only major changes were to revert the inclusion of an infobox and to re-link dates. I am not going to check all the articles, but I am having a lot of trouble believing the assertion that the summary articles were created over a dispute as to content rather than style. Most of his contributions to the main Congress articles have consisted of changing dablinks and other minor changes. The suggestion made, through Gordonrox24, that Stilltim was reverted multiple times before getting frustrated is also hard to swallow.

He was reverted once on each of the articles where he deleted infoboxes and linked dates, but he did not follow up on any of those on any talk page. Moreover, his deletion and link edits were all marked as minor and contained the deceptive edit summary "cleanup". In the end, this behaviour is hard to justify and even harder to understand. It is inconceivable that an editor of such long standing made no attempt whatever to discuss the matter on the talk page of any of the articles involved or the editor who reverted him. The attempt to sneak in his preferred format one last time, in my eyes, detracts from his credibility.

Stilltim's only attempt at an explanation was to User:Ironholds, who seemingly had nothing to do with the dispute. That explanation, here, has a whiff of wp:own about it. In the explanation, Stilltim speaks of another editor "disrupting" his attempts to create consistent format over a period of years. The infoboxes, though, were only added fairly recently and had only been reverted in this recent round of edits. What that shows is that Stilltim is not discussing a pattern of his adding material only to have it deleted. Rather, it shows that Stilltim will revert anything that does not comport with the way he wants the articles to appear. The articles now up for deletion cannot be kept just because not everyone agrees with his vision of how the ordinal Congress articles should look. -Rrius (talk) 13:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Rrius. While I have worked with Stilltim on a number of issues (At-large members, general ticket, party identification, etc.) and find him to be a well researched editor focused on accuracy, I do think he has taken a special liking to the ordinal congress articles to the point of wanting only his version displayed. Based on my recent discussion with him, he has a "vision" in mind of how these articles should look. I asked if there could be a compromise, but in his mind the only solution is to let him bee and once he's finished "picture may be clearer." This is the same response I've gotten from him on other issues, where he feels his version is the right version, and if only other editors would understand that his way is better, all will be right with the world. His goal isn't to distrupt WP, and his intentions are noble, but no one owns articles.

With respect to the articles at hand, his response to me is tha that "individual accounts with a particular organization seems easier to find & use, rather than combine three or four presentations into one immense article." So, he wants one main article summarizing the Congress, one that displays the same info, but in terms of political party, a third formated based on state, and a forth formated with Membership changes. Basically, he does not want any discussion of party strength or membership changes on the main article, and would rather those be forks, because it is easier to present information to people unfamiliar with the subject. My view is that sending people to 4 different articles with the same info isn't simpler, but up till now I haven't made a stink out of it. But now he is objecting to what concensus determine should be with all of the ordinal congresses, and has gone of to recreate his own duplicate page in his own image. I feel we are left with no choice but to delete these articles. If there is a way to do a mass nomination for all "XXth Congress - subject" forks, we should pursue it. Stilltim has made it clear he intends to continue creating his summary articles until he is finished, so while I still assume good faith, it appears to me he is not interested in reaching concensus, only recreating what he feels was wrongfully changed.DCmacnut <> 13:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this is a mass nomination - I just thought that sticking 200 articles in this was a bit OTT. Still, they all use the same format, so it shouldn't be a problem. Ironholds (talk) 13:50, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Layout of the ordinal Congress articles that should have occurred before the summary articles were created. -Rrius (talk) 13:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Rrius. If Stilltim does not respond to my question on his talk page, I have no problem with a mass nomination/deletion of these articles.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 56th United States Congress - summary was deleted.--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, the rest should be next. Stiltim reacted to this AfD by er.. creating more pages in this format. I'm not optimistic. Ironholds (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Stiltim is a smart historian, but if we can't get it to Wikipedia correctly, I see no reason to keep these pages.--gordonrox24 (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Having tangled with Stilltim over these articles before, I believe that the problem is that the user is overly attached to his contributions. See Wikipedia:No vested contributors.—Markles 16:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New discussion here.--gordonrox24 (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Lo[edit]

Article on a non notable character though in notable films played by a Notable character (understatement!). The article cites no sources, though contains a link to IMDB which contains even less information than the article and invites viewers to edit it so cannot be a WP:RS. Appears to fail WP:N and WP:OR at the least. Information would be better placed in the actor's article or those of the films or film series. HJMitchell You rang? 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: IMDB does not "invite viewers to edit" (that's wikipedia). They allow viewer submissions in addition to their own editorial efforts, and those submissions are vetted vefore IMDB publishes. HOWEVER, and yes, wiki does not accept IMDB as an RS, but allows it as a tool to encourage further research and sourcing. And as an External link, is quite acceptable. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had a quick check, and although the character is popular on the web, as it was Lee's last role (I think), that doesn't give the character notability. No reliable sources give anything but a passing mention. Fences and windows (talk) 23:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to his last film. Since it's the last character Bruce Lee played, it's not unlikely for readers to look up the character. We should be able to point them to a relevant article. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:03, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and further source. As a character in multiple notable films, did no one think to look at Google Books? The fictional character in these does have some coverage: Encyclopedia of Chinese Film[14] ISBN 0415151686, Hong Kong Cinema[15] ISBN 0851704964, From Bruce Lee to the Ninjas[16] ISBN 0806510099, Great Martial Arts Movies[17] ISBN 0806520264, Screen World[18] ISBN 0517541408, Contemporary Theatre, Film and Television[19] ISBN 081039958X, Bruce Lee[20] ISBN 0822596881, etc... and Bily Lo is mentioned in reliable sources (and yes, in connection with Bruce Lee): Google News. Sources only need to be non-trivial when the mere existence of these sources is used to establish notability. That's not the case here, as the Billy Lo being a character in these films is easily verified. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 05:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But is the character himself notable? A brief mention in some film encyclopedias (which I also found easily when I looked earlier), does not establish notability for this character. If there is any non-trivial coverage, please point to it and use it to improve the article. Fences and windows (talk) 23:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Young Scientist Journal[edit]

Promotional article for embryonic student journal, the only library holding it is the National Library of Canada. The reference given supports the idea that they hope someday to be notable. DGG (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No notability.--gordonrox24 (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Although it is mentioned in detail in one reliable source, and has a passing mention here:[21], it's not enough. Fences and windows (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable student journal. Salih (talk) 06:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not Delete To my knowledge it is well notable among atleast 3000-4000 high school students in Toronto and many more across Canada and beyond. To prove my point please make a Google search for key words: young scientist.Cysj (talk) 22:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — Cysj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note possible conflict of interest between username and article name. tedder (talk) 22:23, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definite COI - Cysj is the article creator. Google hits and high school student knowledge do not establish notability. Fences and windows (talk) 15:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:20, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Arthashastra. Sandstein 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seven ways to greet a neighbor[edit]

Keep I actually do not support the deletion of this article, but an editor has questioned the notability of this concept. This is an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy, and overall is a useful article to have. -down load ׀ sign! 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. At the moment it is a copyviolation of its reference [22] so is a speedy deletion candidate. I42 (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, at the moment it is not a copyvio, as I have rephrased all the statements in the article. In addition, the descriptions were assumed to be copyvios though they were actually direct translations from the ancient Indian text. -down load ׀ sign! 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Translations are, however, copyrightable. And, since there was a copyright notice on the website, it was a copyright violation to copy and paste things directly from the other website. either way (talk) 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-phrasing or paraphrasing is still a copyright violation. Drawn Some (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is not true. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 05:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How so? — neuro^(talk) 13:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, before anyone assumes that this is something from the late Mister Rogers, this refers to the Arthashastra, a text of the 4th Century BC, in ancient India, and it has to do with strategies for one nation dealing with another. From that article, it says that "The Arthashastra is divided into 15 books: I Concerning Discipline II The Duties of Government Superintendents III Concerning Law IV The Removal of Thorns V The Conduct of Courtiers VI The Source of Sovereign States VII The End of the Six-Fold Policy VIII Concerning Vices and Calamities IX The Work of an Invader X Relating to War XI The Conduct of Corporations XII Concerning a Powerful Enemy XIII Strategic Means to Capture a Fortress XIV Secret Means XV The Plan of a Treatise." My suggestion is that the article author should determine which part of the Arthashastra this comes, if you want to save the article from the copyvio referred to (and missed by me) above. Mandsford (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To my information, this concept is actually spread amongst the separate books of the Arthashastra, particularly books 12-14. It merits a separate article as it has had a great influence on political rule and legitimacy. -down load ׀ sign! 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have seen no evidence that this is "an important concept and has influenced modern day views on policial legitamacy [sic]." As I pointed out to the author on my talk page, I can't find these concepts in a text of the Arthashastra, and a Google search (yes, I know, probably not the best gauge for notability on a 2000+ year old concept) reveals that it's taught in some schools, but little else. either way (talk) 21:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its notability is proved, being part of the Arthashastra. This has little to do with the fact that it is "taught in some schools." -down load ׀ sign! 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just being part of it does not prove its notability for a standalone article. It can be merged/mentioned in the article on the full work. either way (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notablity is NOT inherited. Drawn Some (talk) 21:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I phrased my comment in such a way that implied that I meant that. As I stated before, it is notable as it has a great impact on political legitimacy. -down load ׀ sign! 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You keep restating this but haven't proven that it has a great impact. Can you please give sources that show its impact? either way (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...which is why I have contacted WikiProject Indian history for some help with that. -down load ׀ sign! 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add further to my comment. This is currently failing one of the key needs for an article on Wikipedia: verifiability. The author has a general idea of where this comes from within the text, but can't point to a specific location. A specific point in the text where this concept exists needs to be given in order to verify this. either way (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a copyright Violation. You would need to completely rewrite the section in question. I'm sorry, Download, but this won't do. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete copyvio, and aside from that its notability isn't established. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What is all this with copyvios? I see nothing that is copied from the source... -down load ׀ sign! 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one who said you rephrased an article, which is a copvio. Drawn Some (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I rephrased it, which is why it's no longer a copyvio... -down load ׀ sign! 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have A Look:

Wiki Article	Source
The seven ways to greet a neighbor are an excerpt from the Arthashastra, an Indian treatise on government from the fourth century B.C.E.^[1] They are the seven strategies Kautilya recommended to Chandragupta Maurya in dealing with neighboring powers. Strategies Sarnan - Appeasement and sweet talk, treaties and non-aggression pacts Danda - Exerting power, being well-armed Dana - Bribery or gift-giving, agreements to share the spoils of war Bheda - Dividing the opposition to defeat them using treachery or treason Maya - Deceit, illusion, diplomatic deception (e.g. when a Japanese diplomatic mission went to Washington, D.C. in 1941 while aircraft carriers were already traveling towards Pearl Harbor Upeska - Overlooking or ignoring the enemy until one has decided on the proper course of action Indraiala - Military maya^[1]	Description This excerpt comes from Arthasastra, a fourth century B.C.E. Indian treatise on government. It offers advice on how a ruler should handle neighboring states. Content 1. Saman: Appeasement, sweet talk, soothing words, conciliatory conduct, such things as non-aggression pacts; 2. Danda: Power, military might, punishment, violence, being well-armed, aggression of whatever kind; 3. Dana: a bribe or gift, a donation, an agreement to share the spoils; 4. Bheda: Divide and opposition so as to defeat them, splitting, cause a breach in the opposition, sow dissension in the enemy's party, use treachery, treason; 5. Maya: Deceit, illusion, fraud, a diplomatic feat (for example the Japanese mission to Washington offering appeasement as their bombers were readying for the attack on Pearl Harbor); 6. Upeksa: Overlooking, taking no notice, ignoring the enemy until you have decided on the proper course of action; 7. Indrajala: Military maya, creating an appearance of power when you have none.

You paraphrased very lightly from the source, still a copyvio. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, the source is a direct translation. I was under the impression that direct translations were allowed as the Arthashastra has no copyright. -down load ׀ sign! 22:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty good essay on copyrights and translations. Read the sixth paragraph, in particular (it starts with "There are translations that..."). It essentially states that while the original text is in the public domain, a new translation of it can be considered original content. either way (talk) 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. -down load ׀ sign! 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You should have cited the original document then, instead of the website. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No longer a copyvio. -down load ׀ sign! 22:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So it's okay to violate copyright as long as you pretend later that it isn't? I have a problem with this. Drawn Some (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's try to keep cool here. They used it as a source. They dramatically changed it so it no longer came close to violating copyright. That matter is resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated, the descriptions of the seven methods were translations. While the original text was not copyrighted, either way showed that some translations could be copyrighted. Therefore, I cut down even more on the descriptions. -down load ׀ sign! 22:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changing vote to Speedy Keep because my issues have been resolved. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe that notability and verifiability are expressed in this article? If so, how? Thanks, either way (talk) 22:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article is notable because the document is. I can nominate for merge into the main article about this book if you prefer. I trust that source, however if someone wants to re translate... T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The document may be, but as pointed out above, the notability is not inherited. You'd need to prove why this section in particular is notable enough for its own article. either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - the topic is notable. M C 10 | Sign here! 22:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes it notable, as shown through reliable, independent sources? either way (talk) 22:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Actually, after seeing the other responses, I decide to Merge this article as a section of the original article. M C 10 | Sign here! 00:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are only a few Google hits and only one of them seems to be non-trivial reliable resource. Can someone provide non-trivial reliable resources in another language? Otherwise, this is non-notable and non-verifiable and should be merged with the parent article. I don't see the potential of this ever becoming a full article in English with available resources. Drawn Some (talk) 22:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using printed sources? -down load ׀ sign! 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you considered using printed sources? You are the author of the article, and the onus falls on you to prove notability and provide sources to establish it. either way (talk) 23:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have. I was saying that it could very likely be possible to have the article become at least a C-class. -down load ׀ sign! 23:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should hardly fall on editors at AfD to come up with printed sources in another language. If you can name some books I'll see if my local library system can get them for me because it just doesn't have any now. Otherwise, you could have someone translate them and then make them available. Otherwise, even if this concept were notable, and verifiable, given existing discoverable resources, it can't be made into a full encyclopedia article without WP:OR. I'm going to go ahead and say Merge to Arthashastra. When it becomes significant enough to be an article it can be spun out. 23:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have added the merge template to the main article. T3chl0v3r (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I searched for the title and got almost nothing. I also searched for some of the phrases alongside Arthashastra, and found no sources that discussed these principles in particular. There is no notability on its own. Fences and windows (talk) 23:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete to make this more than just a direct translation it would need to have some sourced critical commentary. And wikipedia is not the place for translations.--Salix (talk): 11:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The title is too generic and lacking in notability to stand by itself - too like innumerable self-help slogans (The Seven Habits of Highly Effective People) and the like (Seven Deadly Sins). Colonel Warden (talk) 13:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete. There is too little here to justify a separate article from the parent, and the article is anyway lacking in context which the parent would provide. The title is too vague to provide a meaningful redirect; it doesn't appear to be a formal name anyway, rather a heading coined by the authors of the reference article (even if it is a formal name, it would be a translation and could therefore take many forms). I42 (talk) 13:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Arthashastra. Not enough information to require its own article. There is nothing wrong with combining it with the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 20:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability, too generic, nothing to merge. Verbal chat 08:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for Close[edit]

Have we reached a consensus to merge? T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- If so, I will merge the article and Speedy Close this AFD. T3chl0v3r (talk) 20:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is there to merge? We have an article with no verifiable information. Why would we merge that into that article? either way (talk) 21:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The info is verifiable from that source and would do just fine in the main article on this document. T3chl0v3r (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this would be an appropriate non-admin closure - there is not concnensus on merge/redirect vs merge/delete vs outright delete, and any deletion if so actioned would require an admin. I42 (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no way I would support a NAC, and I would certainly not like for this to be closed so early on with such an unclear consensus for action. — neuro^(talk) 11:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Arthashastra. It's really more interesting there where it is in context and will find some extra readers so nothing is lost. (At first I thought it was about Mormon church outreach. :-) )Steve Dufour (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge & redirect, this is verifiable but not notable. Drawn Some (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as non-notable, unless secondary sources are found discussing this material. As it stands, there's nothing upon which to base an article. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Would have more standing in context, which everybody knows is nice. a little insignificant 17:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect to Arthashastra. Consensus to close now? Bearian (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good compromise, as there is not enough for a standalone article, but still seems to be worthy of inclusion. --Susan118 (talk) 21:30, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would appear we all say Merge. If this is the case, we should go ahead and do it. T3chl0v3r (talk) 22:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 10:58, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Next Island[edit]

Contested ProD, MMORPG that ~~isn't out of beta testing yet~~ isn't even in beta testing yet (see edit summary for removing the ProD tag in the article's history). The supplied sources are a press release and a few blog entries - none are third-party non-trivial sources. Google turns up an official website and nothing else related, gnews and the gnews archive turns up nothing whatsoever.

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this can be re-added once the game goes live, and has non-trivial coverage. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Let's wait till it has some coverage in reliable sources. Fences and windows (talk) 23:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Author Comment (moved from above the AfD links by 2) This MMORPG will be the first MMORPG use CryEngine2 technology which accord to a Wik entry is one of the most significant 3D technology development. Nothing has been released to the press until the recent LA Games Conference that just ended last week. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but you can assume that Star Trek (great script and director) will be a successful movie next week based on it's DNA. Next Island's DNA will be CryEngine2 (great proven technology) and a new world within Entropia Universe (great business success by Mindark). That is great DNA and like Star Trek - a great success for this coming 3D MMORPG. - (Charles Dong (talk) 23:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)) Charles —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charles Dong (talk • contribs) 22:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We can cover the new Star Trek movie because it's mentioned in detail in numerous independent, reliable sources. Until Next Island achieves the same, it doesn't meet the notability criteria. Somno (talk) 06:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as crystalballery. That is, unless one can find coverage via reliable secondary sources. Otherwise, it's unverifiable speculation – what Wikipedia is not. MuZemike 01:49, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete (G3 by Dank Cheers. I'^mperator 23:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity DeBeane[edit]

I believe this is a hoax; there are no Google hits for this name apart from the 3 Wikipedia-related hits. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 20:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete certainly looks like a hoax. The author has also inserted other references and dubious material and needs to be cleaned up after. Drawn Some (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - obvious hoax, the picture shows the singer of German band Tokio Hotel, just look at the logo in the left lower corner... --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Also speedy delete his hit single "I'm in Miami, Bitch". --Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 21:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with both speedies if you're sure, although as G3/vandalism, not as db-bio as it was tagged. - Dank (formerly Dank55) (push to talk) 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's a sad world we live in when a song "I'm in Miami, Bitch" by the transgender emo singer/son of grade B actor Trinity DeBeane is not readily apparent as a hoax. Drawn Some (talk) 22:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Hoax. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Markovian parallax denigrate[edit]

No reliable sources cited. My own search turned up mostly mirrors of this page. I'm surprised an entirely unsourced article has been lying around since 2004. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All total speculation, and no reliable sources ever picked up on it. Transwiki to Encylopedia Dramatica. Fences and windows (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if verified, mere existence is not enough to support an article. - Mgm|^(talk) 08:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One (talk) 05:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph McMoneagle[edit]

Article has been tagged with notability concerns for a while. AFD from several years back didn't establish notability, and some votes were keep pending a cleanup that never happeded. Only argument made for notability on this person made on talk page has been to say he got a medal, but the article is priomarily about highly POV claims of psychic power and not the medal, and the medal wouldn't demonstrate bnotability for a Wikipedia article even if that's what the article were about. The article right now is one massive WP:BLP violation and needs to be deleted. (TWINKLE botched on me again, so original description disappeared.) DreamGuy (talk) 20:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Stub: This guy's on telly *a lot*, often in a non-Stargate capacity. Quite apart from all the UK and US coverage, his appearances on FBI: Psychic Detective on Nippon telly (17 million viewers) run into double figures for example, and that's not including multiple two-hour "Joe McMoneagle Specials". If anyone repeatedly secures primetime coverage across multiple continents wiki notability seems clear-cut to me.

Google Scholar also reckons his books get cited so secondary sources do appear to be out there.

The article could be stubbed down for NPOV reconstruction perhaps - I'd like to see it done properly. K2709 (talk) 21:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidently notable. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are already two TV appearances, obviously a notable guy. Some more sources I dug up:[23] (in Romanian!); [24];[25]; [26];[27];[28]. This is an interesting account of a physicist's interaction with McMoneagle, which ends with the physicist believing in his powers:[29]. I'd say it's a good example of credulity and how physicists are prone to mystical thinking, but that's just me. Fences and windows (talk) 00:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but with a substantial overhaul. He certainly seems to be notable enough, as Fences and Windows has demonstrated; the problems with the article can be fixed. Which isn't to say there aren't a lot of serious POV problems with it, ~~but a rewrite, and not deletion, is the solution~~ Changed to neutral, see my comments below --Miskwito (talk) 00:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After reading Ryan Paddy's comments, I've changed my !vote to neutral. Since some people have been asking how the article violates BLP, my impression is that the following policy statements are violated or should apply here: "While a strategy of eventualism may apply to other subject areas, badly written biographies of living persons should be stubbed or deleted"; "The article should document, in a non-partisan manner, what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject and, in some circumstances, what the subject may have published about themselves" (my emphasis); "External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and are judged by a stricter standard than for other articles"; "Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if...the article is not based primarily on such sources." I'm remaining neutral, however, because again, he clearly seems to be notable, and Fences and Windows' work on improving the sourcing of the article has me optimistic that it can be salvaged --Miskwito (talk) 01:08, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Notability has been established. The article does need serious work, but AfD is not Cleanup. Firestorm ^Talk 04:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to biographies of living persons, if serious problems are not cleaned up it does need to be deleted, so AFD is, in fact, cleanup when previous attempts to let people know the article needed cleaning up didn't result in any substantive action. This is a put up or shut up thing. Fix it or delete it, per policy on BLPs. DreamGuy (talk) 14:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question The additional sources do seem to push the subject closer to notability than what's on the page. Could the nominator please expand on what makes the article a "massive BLP violation" in their opinion? Is it just the biased tone, which can be fixed, or something more intrinsic? Ryan Paddy (talk) 05:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If reliable sourcing can be found (no attempt had been made in the years since the first AFD) and the article can be totally rewritten to follow our other policies then of course it would not be a BLP violation anymore. On the other hand, saying it can be cleaned up and never doing it continues the violations. It needs to be fixed before it can be kept, and the people saying it can be ought to back it up and do it. We know from experience the last time around that the people supporting it didn't actually care about fixing it. DreamGuy (talk) 13:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You still haven't told us how the article violates WP:BLP. What part of the policy in specific does it violate? If you don't say what the problem is, how do you expect it to be fixed? Firestorm ^Talk 15:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Attempted initial cleanup, but found that the article is based primarily on WP:SELFPUB sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There isn't enough to say about the subject, that can be reliably sourced, to merit an article. None of the reliable sources examine his history as a "psychic" with rigour, and that's the topic of the article. As a result the article largely references his own writings, which appear far from reliable. With the sources available, the article can never be well-sourced in regards to the bulk of the info it should contain. Ryan Paddy (talk) 19:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is plenty of material to establish notability; I've added some more sources. We don't need to believe in remote viewing to have an article about one of the main participants. I fail to see the POV pushing, the article neither endorses nor criticises McMoneagle, it just presents what the sources say. Further, there is no BLP breach at all. Dreamguy needs to back that up, not just assert it. Self-published sources are allowed, and I don't think the use of them in this article is overly "self-serving". I think this is a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I don't like claims of remote viewing either, but that doesn't stop this guy from existing and being notable. Fences and windows (talk) 21:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What I don't like is a BLP that consists almost entirely of "the subject claims X about himself", and for which insufficiently detailed reliable sources have been found to expand the article beyond that. Looking at your recent expansions, presumably based on your new sources, they are almost all of the "McMoneagle states X" variety. That just doesn't fly. WP:BLP states that WP:SELFPUB can only be used if "the article is not based primarily on such sources." This article is, and while you have found some independent sources the info they contain is still sourced from the subject, so they break the spirit of not basing an article on self-claims. With the sources available, this article can never be sufficiently detailed without violating BLP, in spirit if not in letter. Which is why it should be deleted: an article that can only consist largely of a subject's claims about themselves should not exist. While I'm a sceptic, I do my best to be even-handed about paranormal articles. I would make exactly the same argument regarding any BLP that can only largely consist of the subject's claims about themself. Ryan Paddy (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are reliable sources that discuss and quote McMoneagle - that's not self-publishing. I think a solution is to cut down the detail that is sourced only from his writings, to leave a much shorter but better sourced article. Fences and windows (talk) 01:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (undent) Can you point to a reliable source that describes his work as a psychic without just parroting his claims? His work as a "government psychic" is his claim to fame, and all we have is his own word on it. Therefore the cutting-down you describe, if done well, will result in a non-article because there is insufficient independent research on this subject. When a subject appears makes numerous unlikely and unverifiable claims about himself, does it really matter if those claims are quoted in reliable sources? Show me an in-depth reliable source on his psychic career that demonstrates editorial oversight and fact-checking, not just quoting his claims, and I'll give it to you that there is an article to be had. Otherwise all we have is a pile of steaming "what some guy claims about himself". I'm not denying that he seems to be mildly notable, but that's not sufficient to warrant an article in every case. In this instance, the only verifiable information about the subject's psychic career appears to be self-claims. Do we really want Wikipedia articles about what people claim they did in a secret government program that no reliable source corroborates with independent research? Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an authoritative source. The military operations officer for the Stargate Project (F. Holmes Atwater) writes about him in "Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul", p127-131. ("We contracted privately with Robert Monroe to work with Joe McMoneagle, our best ERVer..."). K2709 (talk) 11:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Captain of My Ship, Master of My Soul: Living with Guidance, by F. Holmes Atwater, contributors Joseph McMoneagle and Dean Radin does not appear to be an "independent view" of the subject. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their contribution was front matter, not any of the chapters themselves, which are predominantly auto-biographical. Also, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. This data from another world authority on RV matches other sources about McMoneagle - that is verification in action. I don't care if in reality it's all a massive conspiracy, it's still a consistent conspiracy, and everyone who bought his books still finds it notable either way. K2709 (talk) 18:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think individuals promoting themselves as world authorities in a pseudoscience lend verifiability to McMoneagle's claims. All they can do is add more claims to an already claim-heavy article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:36, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be genuinely interested in knowing in what way you find eg. this fairly typical article by him pseudoscientific. It's fully relevant to McMoneagle as the technology that is its focus is precisely what McMoneagle was immersed in during his training with Robert Monroe (as described in the book reference). K2709 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Firestorm Jenuk1985 | Talk 11:15, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. How about this article from TIME Magazine in 1995, which calls him "a Pentagon psychic from 1978 to 1984" while criticizing Stargate and the large budget it had. Or, there's Harold Puthoff's paper "CIA-Initiated RV Program at SRI," which describes him as "well-known in the field." Jessica Utts wrote a paper called "AIR: An Assessment of the Evidence for Psychic Functioning" which calls the work SRI did while McMoneagle was there as "statistically significant." Does this bolster the claim of notability? Firestorm ^Talk 14:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Notability is not being questioned. What's in doubt is whether there's sufficient independent coverage available to write an acceptable BLP. See Miskwito's notes above about the special expectations of a BLP. The Time article only mentions the subject in passing, it's not sufficiently detailed to provide more than a line or two of information for the article. Based on your description, the other articles are similarly lacking in detail about the subject. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:29, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Google Book Search lists literally hundreds of books mentioning him but not by him. Judging from a few I've sampled (eg. "Miracles of mind" By Russell Targ and Jane Katra p54-61 or "Psi Spies" by Jim Marrs p131) I'd say there's easily enough suitable objective material to go beyond a stub. K2709 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Hate to be a broken record, but a "renowned spiritual healer" and a "famed conspiracy theorist" don't qualify as non-partisan, reliable sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This dismissal doesn't apply to the quotes and tabular results within them that come from referenced sources who are clearly neither author, and what's more there are still several hundred unaddressed books on that list. Also, someone like Russell Targ having an interest in a non-McMoneagle-relevant topic such as spiritual healing does not automatically make them unreliable in other respects - by such reasoning, the "hundred papers in lasers, plasma physics, laser applications and electro-optics" Targ also published must be considered dodgy as hell - unlikely. In a similar vein, being a prominent researcher into a topic, RV or otherwise, hardly implies a partisan nature with respect to whether a person called Joe McMoneagle was in certain places at certain times in his life - the non-controversial meat of a BLP. It may easily suggest bias with respect to RV's validity or estimates of McMoneagle's hit rate and to this end I'd like to see treatment of either basically avoided in the article, but that still leaves plenty of workable material. K2709 (talk) 22:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For the same reason invoked by LuckyLouie (WP:SELFPUB). Sophos II (talk) 18:39, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos shot in Iceland[edit]

Not a defining criterion for a list. Orphaned since 9/08, no sources, trivial intersection. I can't imagine why we would need to list music videos by where they were filmed, and it also seems very, very hard to source (note that most are actually by Icelandic artists). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; not a useful list or a notable concept. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What the Bjork?!! Maybe this can be merged into List of Icelandic films and nobody will notice. Mandsford (talk) 21:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd like to say keep, as the topic seems to just pass the threshold for notability. However the issues about sourcing are a clincher for. It is currently unsourced and its difficult to see how that is going to change. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For one thing, it's wrong, the videos of Mel C and Alice Deejay weren't shot in Iceland. Mel C's video has a brief clip of the Blue Lagoon at the start is all, and the Alice Deejay video is in a warm semi-desert climate. This is of course my own original research from watching the videos just now... if any of the mentions are true, maybe mention in Music of Iceland? After watching Sophie Ellis-Bextor - Today The Sun's On Us, which is actually shot in Iceland and features the Hallgrímskirkja, I'm thinking of starting List of music videos featuring sudoku or Sudoku in popular culture. Not. Fences and windows (talk) 01:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of music videos using animation[edit]

Also a non-defining, poorly sourced list. Some entries are by red link artists, and there isn't a single source in sight. I fail to see how the use of animation in a music video is a notable criterion. Survived the last AFD based on only two WP:ILIKEIT votes, one of the stupidest closures I've ever seen. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete simply because if this list were anywhere near complete it might contain thousands upon thousands of entries. Will never be usefull. Much more suited for a super-category. Drawn Some (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. This is a reasonable enough list but a category would be much better to maintain this properly. Stifle (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, no danger of anyone arguing WP:INTERESTING or WP:USEFUL on this one, because it's neither. Mandsford (talk) 21:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. It's impossible to learn anything from this list as it stands. The use of animation in music videos is so widespread as to make this list of no interest. But there are some notable uses, like Daft Punk, Peter Gabriel's Sledgehammer, a-ha's Take on Me, Devo, Michael Jackson, etc. and there are literally hundreds of news sources referring to animation in music videos. I found an indepth interview in an animation magazine about the use of animation in music videos after a quick search, there might be more out there:[30]. Maybe an article on Animation in music videos could discuss the history of it and mention the more notable uses, without being a list of every single use ever? Fences and windows (talk) 01:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 14:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep In spite of claims made above, this listing has been EXTREMELY useful to me in finding animated music videos, many of which I would NOT have found through ANY other extant venue. I would not have been able to find virtually any of the international mvs that weren't British or American anywhere else. Maybe some people don't like Lists, but I loathe the limitations set upon Categories, which I often find are difficult to read and very troublesome to search. As for Red-Links, well, that just indicates what needs to be worked upon, doesn't it? I do agree with the above that more and more mvs are using animation and that at some point (if not already) it will be so common as to make a comprehensive list very difficult and that an article would be very helpful (but not a perfect replacement. However, you do not kill your kid if there are more kids in the daycare than you can count. BTW, there's nothing like 'stacking the ballot box' by removing the Rescue Template, is there? CFLeon (talk) 20:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep This article is a list of categorized primary-source citations. Even incomplete, even if it would be hard to handle if completed, categorized primary-source citations are valuable. I don't see the reasoning here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Randwolf (talk • contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article survived a similar question back in 2005 (as is noted on the talk page), and it can hardly have become less useful since then. Fences and Windows raises the interesting possibility of an Animation in music videos page, which I would strongly support within the limits of my interest in the subject; that sounds like a fine article, but it is not the question currently under debate. Until such a page does exist, I think this list should remain as a precursor to it. If there is no superior article, let's not throw out the admittedly flawed list that exists now until we have something better with which to replace it. Wyvern (talk) 04:40, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have found this article useful on occasion - John Williamson, 9 May 2009 Comment was made by an IP address. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

List of nudity in music videos[edit]

Seems to be a non-notable junction. Entirely trivial, with most entries being "various models". Tagged for sources and notability since 1/08 with no improvements, and I doubt that it could be sourced at all, except in individually notable cases (such as "I Melt", which got banned from CMT because of a nude scene). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! No images. What a ripoff. Mandsford (talk) 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If this is an acceptable list then just go ahead and split it into:

List of male nudity in music videos
List of female nudity in music videos
List of nudity in music videos of indeterminate sex

etc. This list is too broad to be useful, it will contain thousands of members. Maybe even break it down by skin color and sex and the type of nudity: frontal, buttocks only, sexual organs, etc. Drawn Some (talk) 22:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I hadn't known that about REM, Placebo or TaTu, for example. So I found the article educational! The topless bit in Pop Song 89 is notable:[31], same with Protege Moi:[32][33] (the director also made the film Irreversible) and same with Tatu:[34]. I'm sure many of the other examples can be shown to be notable. Fences and windows (talk) 02:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment this list is woefully incomplete. There are so many music videos from France that have nudity in them. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 05:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but use stricter criteria--at least for the more recent years (eg, topless is no longer all that significant). Possibly even limit to known performers, not just some person in the background. DGG (talk) 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there are some notable Music Videos within this, I'd say stricter criteria would be along the lines of "Rock DJ" by Robbie Williams and "Womanizer" by Britney Spears. Afkatk (talk) 07:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 09:16, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per DGG. If stricter criteria were applied, this could be encyclopaedic and well worth keeping. HJMitchell You rang? 18:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:NOTDIR. There is no single source proving why just videos featuring nudity are notable. Otherwise we will soon have List of music videos featuring dogs and List of identical twins in music videos and List of music videos where the people use forks to eat meat and... Pure listcruft.--Ioannes Pragensis (talk) 20:27, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Austria–Moldova relations[edit]

There are no multiple, independent sources providing significant coverage of the topic, as far as I can tell after searching in English, Romanian and German, so this should be deleted. Biruitorul ^Talk 19:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Thank you Biruitorul, for checking to make sure no references existed in this case delete is obvious. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Just a few seconds of searching brought up multiple significant sources directly about Austria-Moldova relations,
Österreichs Wirtschaft entdeckt Moldawien (German)
Moldovan-Austrian relations have bright prospects (1999)
2007 Austrian foregin ministry -- Austrian official: Moldova's path of reform in interest of Austria, EU
Austrian business representatives interested in strengthening trade relations with Moldova (2008)
Moldova, Austria to organize more joint trade activities in 2008
Moldova: OSCE chairwoman optimistic about Dnestr settlement (2000) (there's probably a lot more), thus easily establishing the topic passes WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 19:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's see. The two Moldpres sources aren't independent (it's a state news agency), so those are invalid. Two of the links talk about potential strengthening of ties - for that, see WP:CRYSTALBALL. Another one is a fairly trite declaration that is far more about Moldova-EU relations than Moldova-Austria ones. Finally, we have a link about a declaration from Benita Ferrero-Waldner, who, yes, is an Austrian, but was speaking in her capacity as OSCE chairwoman - in other words, nothing to do with Austria-Moldova relations. Back to the drawing board. - Biruitorul ^Talk 19:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moldpres is a highly reliable source - if you cannot trust the official publisher of Moldovan laws who can you trust? SilkTork *^YES! 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've completely misunderstood what WP:CRYSTALBALL is. WP:CRYSTALBALL would be assuming there will be significant sources in the future, not significant sources in the present that discusses possible future events. Go ahead and AfD the proposed might-never-happen California-Nevada Interstate Maglev if you truly believe in your personalized application of WP:CRYSTALBALL. And by attempting to cite WP:CRYSTALBALL, you're actually admitting there are secondary sources directly about Austria-Moldova relations. Somehow "banning" state sources as sources on anything to do with the country they're funded by is Wikilawyering in its most silly form (I dare you to to AfD any article about the United Kingdom which all sources come from the state-owned BBC.)--Oakshade (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Silktork, do review WP:GNG - sources used must be independent of the subject - not works produced by those affiliated with the subject. You cannot use publications of the Moldovan government (which Moldpres is) to validate statements about the Moldovan government's activities. It's not a question of trust, but of lack of independence. And even if we could use it, those two reports are what we call news - stuff that would never, ever make it onto Wikipedia were it not for the forced "expansion" of this series of nonsense articles. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oakshade, I have two points to make. Even if I've misunderstood WP:CRYSTALBALL, I'm admitting no such thing. Seriously, what would the article say, "In 1999 the Moldovan President said 'there exist bright prospects for Moldova and Austria to expand their bilateral mutually beneficial cooperation'"? And...? What possible relevance does that have? That doesn't even begin to tell us about the purported topic, "Austria–Moldova relations". Second, the BBC example is a red herring: the BBC is (at least in theory) "independent of any private or governmental influence"; for Moldpres, there is good reason to suspect the lack of impartiality of an agency run by a state that just stole an election - indeed, Moldpres is under the control of the Moldovan President, a Communist and a close ally of Moscow. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I understand the need for independent sources. However, I don't think that we can ignore Moldovan Press Agency articles as sources, any more so than we can disregard a U.S. State Department release on the grounds that it's not "independent". I think that any POV with in a government release has to be taken with a grain of salt, but unless an agency has a reputation for exaggeration or unreliability (North Korea, Zimbabwe, etc.), the press release is evidence that a particular nation considers its relations with another to be noteworthy. Mandsford (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Moldova and the European Union. If there is enough material for a separate section within that article, great, and then when it becomes large enough to be spun out into a separate article, wonderful. Drawn Some (talk) 19:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on multiple reliable sources indicated above which fully establish notability. SilkTork *^YES! 20:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- As I thoroughly demonstrated above, all "sources" presented thus far fail to discuss the topic - "Austria–Moldova relations" - in significant depth. They discuss trivial events and declarations that Wikipedians have deemed aspects of that relationship, but that's not good enough. - Biruitorul ^Talk 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd say it was notable. They are both in Europe and there appears to be evidence out there of a diplomatic relationship. This isn't one of those articles concerning to tiny island states on opposite sides of the worlds. Having said that more could be done to actually establish that notability in the article. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Diplomatic relations yes, as List of diplomatic missions of Moldova tells us. Significant diplomatic relations? I have my doubts about that, as my analysis of the sources presented so far indicates. - Biruitorul ^Talk 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only sources I found were from the Austrian or Moldovan governments about trade agreements. There's nothing to write an article about. Fences and windows (talk) 02:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country;s foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTDIR is probably the least of our worries about the articles. If an article has nothing more than the addresses of embassies or consulates, than it fails the notability test. Mandsford (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Closing administrator please note that Edison has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[35][36][37][38][39][40][41] As I have copy and pasted this notice also. Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. Sources cover events, not the topic of the article as a whole. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep More than enough examples of suitable sourced content. DGG (talk) 22:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since no reliable, independent sources discuss this relationship in any detail beyond the trivial. In fact, i find no sources at all that discuss this relationship. While i find news articles in which both the words "Austria" and "Moldova" appear, i find none (or books, or academic papers, etc...) that treat this as a topic in its own right. And no, I can beat neither the Austrian NOR the Moldovan national football teams at Tennis. I hate tennis.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Embassy in Vienna. The two countries are connected by the Danube (see Template:Danube). Austria has large investmets in Eastern Europe (which are about to bankrupt the country). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The embassies are documented elsewhere; the Danube connection is irrelevant (and anyway the Danube barely touches Moldova); no citations for investments. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep per above, meets notability requirements. Ikip (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets several of my factors for notability, including reliable sources, as noted above. One single source should not be discounted just because it covers one event. Notability about a concept can be found by a series of factors or events. The whole is shown to be notable by individual events over time. By the way, was not Moldova once part of Austria-Hungary? Bearian (talk) 21:34, 5 May 2009 (UTC) By the way, I have never argued that all 20,000 relationship stubs are notable - to the contrary! Bearian (talk) 21:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, Moldova was never in Austria-Hungary; it was under Ottoman and then Imperial Russian control. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have added some content from sources identified by user:Oakshade to the article. Clearly it will be easy enough to find more and better content and sources. Austria is actively investing in Moldova, and Moldova welcomes this. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: While Austrian Empire is clearly the "predecessor state" of today's Austrian Republic, does modern Moldova view itself as a/the successor of the historical Principality of Moldavia? (Geographically, today's Moldova corresponds roughly to the eastern half part of that principality until ca. 1812; the western half is part of Romania now). If it does, then whoever wants to keep the article may well investigate the contacts/conflicts between those two entities - they shared a border for several centuries, after all, with the Principality of Moldavia being an Ottoman dependency of sorts, while Bukovina and Transilvania were Austrian and Hungarian. respectively. Vmenkov (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting suggestion. I would be inclined not to go that far back, but to focus on more recent relations, perhaps the last 20 years or so. Somehow relations between the Principality of Moldavia and the Hapsburg empire seem a different subject. But I would have no objection if someone wanted to add a historical summary, which has some relevance: modern Austria does seem to see that they have a special role in the countries formerly part of or bordering the empire. For now, I would prefer to focus on getting better sources for current involvement - treaties, trade, banking, telecoms etc. - which should be plentiful but unfortunately are mostly not in English. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:45, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - see Moldovenism. However, Moldavia was far more involved with Poland and with Transylvania (well before the latter became part of Austria-Hungary). - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:17, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - important ongoing relationship and the sources added clearly meet WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clear evidence of a relationship, as demonstrated by more sources than many other articles could wish for. HJMitchell You rang? 18:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. One (talk) 05:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2008–09 Heineken Cup semi-final: Munster v Leinster[edit]

Contested PROD. Original reasoning for PROD was "This article does not demonstrate the notability of this match. Any news stories about the game exist because it was played yesterday. The world record attendance is notable, but we do not need a full article about the match to tell us that the attendance was a world record." PROD was contested on the basis that "Actually there has been a big enough build-up to this beforehand... sources exist... 1st club match played there... 1st time for the winning team to progress... unusual for the sport... lots of press." Further deletion arguments include violation of WP:RECENT. – Pee Jay 18:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not only was there a world record but there are other events surrounding it too. First of all, I've mentioned this elsewhere. The event did not take place in the United Kingdom, nor involved teams from there, yet is given widespread coverage by the BBC, The Guardian, The Telegraph, etc. Both the newspapers went out of their way to describe the match in overly positive terms despite it having nothing to do with their country. One an accident perhaps? Two though? And why is it so spectacular? Because evidently nobody expected the winner to win. Sources are certainly not lacking. As soon as the match was confirmed tickets started to sell out. 80,000 is a large attendance for the sport concerned. As stated in the article, a previous attendance for a match was 12,000. This is a match which was anticipated for a long time as is evident from the period between tickets going on sale and the game being played. If this violates WP:RECENT then so too must every single individual rugby union or football match which has an article surely? --can dle •wicke 19:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also ask our opinion on what the difference between this and Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao is? Both have been in the news a lot. Both have lots of sources. Will that be treated any more historically? Just curious... --can dle •wicke 19:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it was given widespread coverage in the United Kingdom is because it was a match in a competition where clubs in the UK were playing. I suspect the semi-final between Cardiff and Leicester would have got a bit of coverage in Ireland. ExamRevision 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They still reserved special language for it. --can dle •wicke 20:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

France 24. Again mentioning the record attendance but this time from neither Ireland nor the UK --can dle •wicke 20:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dubai promotion which considers Munster the favourites. --can dle •wicke 21:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alistairjh is completely right. The UEFA Champions League quarter-final between Barcelona and Bayern Munich also received a fair amount of coverage in the UK, and Spain and Germany have even less ties to the UK than Ireland does. The Heineken Cup is the top club rugby tournament in Europe, so it's obviously going to get a lot of coverage in various sources. This is why we have specific notability criteria as well as the general ones; so that we don't end up with tons of unimportant articles just because someone wrote about them in the news. Apart from the record attendance, this match is NOT historically significant. – Pee Jay 23:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not under the impression that rugby union had as much interest in countries like Spain and Germany as football. It may be the top rugby competition in Europe but it still has limited scope in comparison to the Champions League which it seems possible for almost any country to qualify for. Therefore the coverage of football will always be more than rugby union, it isn't an even enough argument as, if rugby union shattered its records of coverage, it probably wouldn't come close to that received by football on a regular basis. This is another attempt at WAX when the two sports really cannot be compared. --can dle •wicke 15:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fairly obvious really - it meets all the criteria. Plenty of reliable references, and a clear claim of notability in the first sentence. SilkTork *^YES! 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not the news. If kept, then it needs a better title. Stifle (talk) 20:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely WP:NOT NEWS and WP:RECENT. The problem being it is very hard to verify if a match is significant until a fairly long time afterwards. A lot of matches in several sports are hailed as being significant, but that rapidly fades. The world record is notable, but the place for its inclusion are the articles on the two clubs, the stadium and the competition. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But how then can we determine that this will be any less significant than Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao, currently on ITN? As I said before this received significant coverage in the build-up to the match due to the two sides being closely linked and there being that possibility of the record. It could just as easily have been created before the match took place. It isn't really comparable to a sport like association football which regularly attracts huge attendances, huge money through television rights, sponsorship, etc and is played in practically every country in the world unlike rugby. When compared to other matches of similar standing this is significant, it is only when resorting to comparisons to a sport like football, which has so much more worldwide coverage, that it begins to appear insignificant. You refer to Barcelona and Bayern Munich? Well this would have been like Bayern Munich beating Barcelona except even more significant, maybe Bayern Munich going on and beating all the English sides as well and winning the trophy. If you read what is contained in the article, the winning players themselves expected everyone to treat them as underdogs, they were playing against the defending champions and arguably the strongest club rugby side in Europe. Then when they won all the foreign, i.e. non-Irish, newspapers went crazy. It wasn't just one overreacting. --can dle •wicke 00:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And I've left a source above for France but if that's still too close there is also one from Dubai... --can dle •wicke 00:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Where the coverage comes from is not relevant. Second, the Ricky Hatton vs. Manny Pacquiao fight is not relevant to this discussion per WP:WAX. If this match is still receiving news coverage in a month, six months, a year, then it may be considered notable, but not when it only happened on Saturday! – PeeJay 00:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - That would be one opinion. I'm aware of WAX but you haven't responded to the fact that this is not a football match (which surely if anything is another violation of WAX?). This is not comparable to a game where the underdogs actually lost. Please see it as it is. I've compared it to another sport but so have you. How is this appropriate? --can dle •wicke 00:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'm not comparing this game to the Barcelona v Bayern game in terms of notability or article-worthiness though; I'm comparing the two games in terms of the fact that they both involved two teams that are not from the UK, in response to your earlier comments. And to be honest, it's not like Munster were overwhelming favourites in the game; either team could have won. A real shock would have been Connacht beating Munster, Leinster, or any other team in the world. – Pee Jay 14:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone will have to sort out Connacht's article then. They're claiming they got to 9th in the Magners League in 2003-04 and that they reached the semi-final of the European Challenge Cup in consecutive years this decade. And I was under the impression they were improving... I'll have to revise my thoughts on that... --can dle •wicke 15:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge. Merge to 2008–09 Heineken Cup.~~Neutral. A lot of the detail is fancruft, once that is gone there's not much left. Give it a section in the main page. Taking a look at Category:Rugby union matches, writing an article about a club level match is unprecedented. The only equivalent football match I could find was Bayern Munich v Norwich City, which was reported as a shocking result. Fences and windows (talk) 02:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Um... and this was not a shocking result? Precisely. Writing an article about a club level match is unusual but that's because this is a special case as demonstrated previously. --can dle •wicke 03:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So an article about a club football team who produce a shock only defeat in a third round match is acceptable but an article about a rugby union team who produce a shock by beating the defending champions in a record attendance (and one usually not found at club level rugby union) in a (bigger) stadium which usually does not even host rugby union (it is owned by the Gaelic Athletic Association who don't allow "foreign sports" but have allowed the football and rugby teams in while Lansdowne Road is redeveloped, I'm sure there's loads of info on this around Wikipedia) and have all the press raving about the result turning European rugby upside-down is not? There is a section in the Croke Park article about the history of this and please see List of non-Gaelic games played in Croke Park which will confirm it as the one and only exclusive time the GAA have allowed club rugby darken their doors. Many of the others on the list, eg association football and international rugby, are recent additions due to Lansdowne Road being redeveloped – remove them and you have the occasional American football game, 1 boxing and 1 baseball. Please try to understand the history of the GAA and their opening of Croke Park and how significant this is. --can dle •wicke 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2008–09 Heineken Cup. Looking at various articles for comparison say FA Cup 2008–09, it seem that we have one article for the final and another for the the rest of the competition, with a section for the semi-finals. I don't see a compelling reason why it needs to be different here. I don't think the normal notability matches should really apply for sports events otherwise we would end up with articles for nearly every match.--Salix (talk): 11:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Merge This match was certainly notable for reasons already mentioned. Record attendance, club match in Croke Park. Etc. (Irish Editors will appreciate how big a thing this is in particular). I see where candlewicke is going with this, this match possible may represent or be symbolic of a nexus point in irish rugby but only time will tell that. It possibly may be of note in the future. To compare it to football, its more Liverpool beating Man Utd in the semi of the champions league. This result in itself may be of historical note to both the provinces in question. Candlewicke seems to be a very solid editor here and deleting this would be a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I would say keep to see if this turns to be proven to be of significance and failing that to merge it into other articles. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 12:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have another accurate point there as well. This is nowhere near the level of the UEFA Cup. Unless I'm wrong the Champions League is the highest level in football. Yet this is the highest level in rugby union. The football match previously mentioned would be comparable to a different competition, presumably European Challenge Cup. I don't think you would see such a shock in front of a world record attendance in the semi-final of the Champions League every year with so many other added points of significance as mentioned above? --can dle •wicke 15:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, the Barcelona v Bayern game was in the Champions League. – Pee Jay 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The other game that was in the third round of an inferior competition? The above game was (I think?) a quarter final where the expected winners emerged and no records were broken and it wasn't the first game of its type played in that stadium (well evidently not, if Bayern Munich were playing Norwich City over fifteen years ago...), and various other unusual items which could be added together to determine some form of significance... --can dle •wicke 15:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think the point the CW is putting forward here is that this match may be deemed to be culturally relevant rather than viewing it just as the outcome of the match, the same way as when Ireland beat England in the European Championships,only time will tell. This match has demonstrated that Ireland is still capable of great things at a time of low national mood, and as an irish person, we love the underdog story Also I think it is relevant to rugby as a sport in proving that as an occasion it is capable of matching those of other sports, with such a large attendance and a resulting derby game that was contested in a manner that showed almost everything positive in the game. I am a Leinster fan and attended the game so I might be biased!! G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 15:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not sure how Leinster were viewed as the underdogs here. Aren't Leinster and Munster the two biggest teams in Ireland/the Magners League? – Pee Jay 15:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its correct to say they probably are. However Munster are the defending champions in the ERC, They would probably be ranked as the number one club team in Europe presently. This season they have beaten Leinster quite comprehensivley twice in the Magners League and have had a solid run to the semi final. Bookies made Munster the favourites only giving Leinster a 5/2 chance of winning this match. In addition, all analysis in the lead up to this game clearly identified as Munster as the team that would progress. To use a soccer analogy, this match is like Liverpool beating Man Utd 3 - 0 in the semi finals of the champions league if it were held at twickenham and gave a record attendance for that sport. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 15:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was under the impression that Munster were on a different level altogether. I thought many more members of the Ireland team came from Munster than Leinster or Ulster. We might have to contact the BBC, the Guardian, the Telegraph, etc. to tell them they're all wrong because they seem to believe this too. According to the sources, Leinster failed to progress against Munster on a number of previous occasions in this competition. In one sense I am a neutral observer when it comes to this subject. I was not at the game and don't really follow the progress of either team. However, I found it very hard to get away from it despite my best efforts, which extended even to avoiding spending time in the two provinces in question, so thought I'd investigate further. My findings led me to think this was a significant event, one that was worth an attempt at an article if not to see what kind of discussion might follow. --can dle •wicke 15:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the point about the football analogy, would the semi-finals of the football not have four teams whose quality is slightly more equal than the rugby? Would the other two rugby teams be the equivalents of Barcelona or Chelsea? --can dle •wicke 15:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're becoming awfully defensive about this. Anyway, if we had an article every time a team won "against the odds", we would have thousands of articles about individual matches, and that's just not right. This result is not a big deal. The attendance is, but the result is not. – Pee Jay 16:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two things I found in the article on Munster's stadium to indicate their superiority: "Munster also retained an intimidating 12 year unbeaten run at Thomond in the Heineken Cup - running from the competition's start in 1995 until 2007". "Munster celebrated their 12-0 victory over the All Blacks in 1978". You don't expect me to roll over and let it be deleted if there are worthwhile reasons for inclusion? :-O --can dle •wicke 16:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Am not soccer fan so cant answer that one but other 2 teams from yesterdays final are Leicester who won competition beofre and Cardiff, who won EDF Energy cup (kind of Anglos Welsh FA Cup). All of very high quality with significant number of players that are full internationals, Lions etc. G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if you aren't a fan how can you compare it to Liverpool and Man United? I'm not fully certain myself but I would probably think it would be unwise to be making comparisons with football which has much more world-wide coverage and is played at higher levels in more countries than rugby. It could lead to misunderstandings as non-Europeans, for instance, might associate the two together and not see anything remotely significant in it. For instance, when one thinks that Munster, a highly ranked and very well supported team, can typically expect a maximum capacity crowd of about 25,000 at their new stadium (15,000 seated), this pales in comparison to Manchester United (76,212) or Barcelona (98,772), their footballing equivalents if you like. 80,000+ is an astonishing jump for club rugby union and something which no English or French side (with their large populations) seems to have been able to manage before now. --can dle •wicke 16:20, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The only real comparison I can think of is this game (see the AFD); and that's like Connacht (or however you spell it) beating Munster in Munster's home ground (which brings me, who is the host, technically, for this match? Is it like the semifinals of the FA Cup where both games are held and neutral grounds, at both teams can purchase tickets equally?). Which brings me to my next question, was it really a major upset? Leinster also topped their group. And my last question would be, what country has the strongest following in rugby? Does Ireland winning the Six Nations has something to do with the popularity of rugby there? –Howard the Duck 17:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Zealand (All Blacks) are apparently very good at rugby, having beaten every national side and everything else you see in their article. Munster once beat the entire New Zealand team 12-0 all their own. Apparently a defining point in the sport's history. So that might be like Manchester United beating Brazil by 3-0 perhaps? Naturally Ireland winning the Six Nations would have something to do with the popularity of rugby but so too would the popularity and strength of rugby (especially in Munster) have something to do with Ireland winning the Six Nations (you generally don't win things through lack of interest). Ireland has generally always been good at rugby union though and has won trophies before. South Africa beat England to win the last World Cup if that offers further perspective on who might be considered a good team. The match was a home tie for Munster I think. But the exceptional interest prompted the teams to seek permission from the GAA for use of Croke Park which proved a good idea since it filled an 80,000+ stadium to capacity. As previously discussed rugby union in Croke Park is a fairly big deal in itself. This went beyond the deal where internationals would only be played there. --can dle •wicke 18:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to interrupt again – I've just noticed the average attendance at each match of the 2007 Rugby World Cup (international) is about half that of the attendance at this club game. I don't really know what that means or if it helps but I think it further underlines the massive attendance at and interest in this game. That tournament was held in France (the second largest country in Europe and with a population about twelve or thirteen times that of the entirety of Ireland if I'm doing the sums correctly), one of the more competitive of the Six Nations (22 Six Nations titles, 8 of them in Grand Slam fashion), so such a comparative lack of attendance seems unusual. --can dle •wicke 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous. Croke Park is a huge stadium, so it's not surprising that a record club attendance was set on Saturday. Also, this was the semi-final of Europe's biggest club rugby competition, and it featured two rival teams from the same country. It would not have been hard for Munster and Leinster to bring massive followings to Dublin (especially Leinster), making the large attendance even less surprising. You should also note that the average capacity of the stadia used at the 2007 Rugby World Cup is 49,084, not much more than the average attendance for each game at the tournament (47,150), which, by the way, is not "about half" of the attendance for this semi-final.

Furthermore, although Munster were favourites, this not as surprising a result as the aforementioned Bayern Munich v Norwich City match (a match that featured one of the most successful teams in European football history and a team that had never played in Europe before – see if you can guess which is which…).

You are colouring statistics and facts a distinctly rosy colour to fit your own opinions, and I'm not having it. – Pee Jay 22:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not having it? This isn't some sort of autocratic military style elimination. Hmmm... --can dle •wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The case for keeping is now being made on a comparison to the page about the football match I found, but this is flimsy - pointing out the almost unprecedented nature of this page isn't an excuse to start arguing that this match is more notable than the other one. Judge it on its own merits. I'd bear in mind that Wikipedia is not a news agency, so we need to take a step back and judge the notability in the long run, not just because it was a recent match. There is an essay on notability in sport - note that it is not a policy or guideline:Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Individual_games. Original research and opinion about notability is irrelevant - the significance of the coverage is what counts. How many articles covered it, and was there any front page coverage? Here's the coverage I can find in reliable sources:[42][43](basically same article);[44];[45];[46];[47];[48];[49];[50];[51]. Now, bearing in mind the typical hyperbole of newspaper sports pages, was this an historic match? Honestly? Fences and windows (talk) 22:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've probably listed every Irish news source in fairness, whilst leaving out many of the ones from the UK and further afield? Add those and possibly others and we have lots of sources. --can dle •wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not notable enough for a full article, but a sentence or two in the Heineken Cup 2009 (or whatever) article about the attendance and such should be added (if it's not already there). Thanks! Fin ©™ 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, lads im gonna change my vote to merge whatever notable info into other relevant articles. If the matches proves to be historically notable in the long run, then it can be re introduced G~~ain~~Line ^♠_♥ 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No other match in the Heineken Cup has its own page, nor do individual matches in the Super 14, the nearest Southern Hemisphere equivalent. This game merits a footnote in the article on the 2008–09 Heineken Cup (as does the other semi-final, which is equally notable for the manner in which it was decided).

Of the reasons proposed for keeping the page:

attendance: the previous record attendance (81,000+ at Twickenham, as I recall -- something that CW fails to acknowledge) never had an article; why should this one?

the cultural significance: rugby has been played at Croke Park for two years now; not even the first match (a far more significant occasion) has its own page.

This is hardly a good rationale. I suspect someone might not have gotten round to creating it? Saying this match has its own article and this match doesn't isn't particularly helpful. I've never at any point denied they shouldn't have articles. This ought to be judged on its own merits. --can dle •wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On its own merits it was a great game of rugby but not notable enough for a Wikipedia article. The fact that other games do NOT have an article may be helpful (that's for others to decide) in so far as it demonstrates the lack of a precedent for an article for a game such as this one.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster were "underdogs": this is irrelevant; if we were to use this a as a criterion for including articles, we'd be inundated with non-notable articles. For example, keeping it in a rugby context, in this year's S14, the Cheetahs (bottom of the table) and the Reds (second last) both beat the Sharks (who topped the table at the time). Neither game merits an article (nor should they, in my opinion).- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 22:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is an opinion. However, there is no table here. A table suggests it was just one match in a group or league? As such, that was a shock which occurred but may not have even affected the outcome of the favourites in their bid to progress? This particular article (keeping it within context) was not part of a group. The loser was very definitely eliminated. The focus was very much on this one match as opposed to an entire league. Tickets selling at such a rate and a world record being broken ought to clarify the anticipation. --can dle •wicke 17:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it's an opinion: so are all your points. That, in case you'd forgotten, is the purpose of this discussion, to elicit opinions, and that's also why I used the phrase "in my opinion"! But what on earth does the rate of ticket sales have to do with it? The issue is whether this rugby union match deserves an article, when numerous other, perhaps equally or more "significant", games (such as the 2007 RWC 1/4 final between favourites NZ and "outsiders" France, to cite but one example) do not have one. Your argument seems to rest on the size of the gate and the fact that it was an upset: the latter is POV, while the former is not -- again in my opinion -- sufficient to render it notable enough for an article.- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it was a notable upset, and we've got a number of other articles on similar matches. —Nightstallion 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not in the Heneken Cup, we haven't. This is the only Heineken Cup game to have its own article, and, upset or not, it just is not that "notable".- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure there is no reason for the Heineken Cup not to have matches... the UEFA Champions League does... so I imagine the equivalent in rugby union is possible. --can dle •wicke 18:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you're referring to Chelsea F.C. vs FC Barcelona, 2009 UEFA Champions League semi-final, second leg‎, then that article is up for deletion just like this one is, and therefore not admissible as an argument. – Pee Jay 19:10, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that existed and (perhaps surprisingly) it doesn't appear all that notable to me. Oddly enough, someone told me this rugby match was referred to in analysis whether that it true. --can dle •wicke 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've change my opinion above from merge to neutral. If it is kept, all the extraneous detail needs removing, and it needs to be written as an encyclopedic article, not as a sports news report. Fences and windows (talk) 20:56, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't really in a good state because I didn't think there was much point adding to it when I thought it would definitely be deleted. --can dle •wicke 01:24, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just gone over to that deletion discussion mentioned above and I'm left puzzled as to why the football match Battle of Bramall Lane is notable for being abandoned with record few players (that article is completely a match report – this one has at least a bit more on the build-up and could be added to!) yet I'm trying to add further notability to a rugby union match whose place in history and whose record-breaking status has already been proven on multiple occasions... I seem to be being informed that a record isn't good enough to prove notability and yet that's all I can see in BBL... this rugby union match is in better state than those two football matches put together... --can dle •wicke 01:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, articles aren't kept or deleted based on how pretty they look or how comprehensive they are... – Pee Jay 02:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as NOT NEWS with respect to there being a separate article, We need a policy on this. /Individual football, baseball, rugby etc games ought not be subjects for articles, ever. They should be covered in articles for the season, or team or series, or whichever is appropriate for the sport, in whatever detail necessary--I could even see a more detailed section than this. The reason for this is that probably every individual game at the professional level, and certainly every individual game at the championship level, will meet the GNG--there will always be a number of substantial articles in major reliable sources devoted specifically to it. The GNG is useless at both the high and low ends of press coverage. We could do it, we're not paper. But why should we? DGG (talk) 03:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge it should be mentioned in its parent article, but not have it's own page. The very first Welsh international match is a far more notable and historic rugby event, but that sits happily in the 1880-81 Home Nations rugby union matches article. FruitMonkey (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete articles about single games should be kept only in very exceptional cases, such as finals for international top-level tournaments and other games that made history for some reasons, such as, for football, Italy 4–3 West Germany (1970) (best known as "Game of the Century") or Argentina v England (1986 FIFA World Cup quarter-final) (the "Hand of God" incident, immediately followed by Maradona's "Goal of the Century"). These are games that actually deserve coverage, as they made history of that particular game. This is simply not the case. --Angelo (talk) 14:26, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um... it did make history? This is rugby union not football remember? I don't think this sport has a "Hand of God"? And you've given me yet another non-final (and another semi-final as well!) that has an article which adds further to the confusion... --can dle •wicke 15:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a fact that surely this game won't enter into history of rugby union. I've made examples about football only because it's the game I know more about. The fact the game I mentioned are not finals actually strengthen my point, because they point out the fact a game must prove some sort of historical evidence of notability to last within years, and this is not the case. --Angelo (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The match took place only a week ago. It's far too early for asserting that it "made history"; so far, it's made news, not history. It was a shock upset, but that's not unique; it's not even unusual; it certainly isn't grounds for claiming notability only a week after the event.-- Jimmy Pitt (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those are valid points. --can dle •wicke 00:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civony[edit]

Fails WP:WEB, WP:V, WP:RS: no references based on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Was previously moved to userspace (User:drAdamInCA/Civony) and restored before any editors had found reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wyatt Riott. Also warn ~~drAdamInCA~~ User:Valentine Smith about this behavior. Drawn Some (talk) 19:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, didn't mean to imply that User:drAdamInCA had restored it. It was actually User:Valentine Smith. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's more complex than that. Original version deleted was userfied. User:Valentine Smith created a very short stub, that was again deleted. Deleting admin for that then restored at the request of another user, and the userspace version was them copied over. Messy but I can't see anything to suggest any bad faith. The article as the userfied version ended up referenced only to non-reliable sources and had chunks of original research, the version at the moment having those things stripped lacks any real sourcing other than the target website itself. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, what a headache. Regardless, it does not have references to support a verifiable article regardless of its history or notability or lack thereof. Drawn Some (talk) 21:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not notable, but notorious in the blogosphere:[52][53][54][55]. This page is clearly part of their marketing campaign. Fences and windows (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for lack of demonstrable notability. Yes, the site exists; yes, it is popular; yes, there are blog entries relating to it. However, none of these things qualify an article for inclusion. There is no significant coverage (barely any at all, in fact) in any reliable sources. No prejudice against future re-creation - when and if it becomes notable. Frank | talk 10:55, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable, self-referential, original research. Muranternet 16:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because you're all insufferable. Cranston Lamont (talk) 05:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think personal attacks are valid arguments in a deletion discussion. Can you find any reliable sources covering this game? This would be a stronger argument that would convince me to keep the page. Cazort (talk) 00:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mainly because I created it, worked on it and I'm ticked that someone said it's part of the marketing campaign seeing how I do NOT work for UMGE but am a player who enjoys the game.Terryrayc (talk) 14:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have a reason based on Wikipedia policy to keep this article? This isn't a vote, it's an attempt to establish consensus based on the policies and guidelines of the Wikipedia project. Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I also agree with the above post. I started playing Civony (now Evony) in Early April 2009. The descriptions given are accurate. It should be mentioned that there is a lot of controversy surrounding the ability to progress and the incredibly huge cost for purchasing upgrades with real money. (Added by 142.25.40.250)
- Is this controversy mentioned in any reliable sources? Wyatt Riot (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Depends on how you define reliable. If you do a google search you'll find thousands of writeups and debates on the issue. Also related to the Age of Kings theft, again you will find a lot of debates and writeups regarding the issue. Heck now there's a lot of debate going on because it seems UMGE stole to ad pictures they were using from another company. I'd expect lawsuits except they are in China and we know how well those lawsuits work.Terryrayc (talk) 20:55, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can find a list of reliable sources for video game-related articles here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources. A general explanation of Wikipedia policy can be found at Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Wyatt Riot (talk) 21:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI I redirected the page from Civony to Evony, the offical new name.Terryrayc (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Though I am actively playing and enjoying the game, the article lacks reliable sources and I can't find any via Google. Just blog hits and forum posts. This may become notable. Heck it may become notable very soon, but its not notable yet and shouldn't have an article until it is and an article can be written that isn't based entirely on the official website and the writers personal experience (i.e. WP:OR. Eluchil404 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I am a new player to the game and found the article useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.243.83 (talk) 11:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Though useful is not a reason to keep, I interpret the above comment to mean "informative about something important". There will obviously need to be a watch for NPOV. Requirements for just what sources count for computer games need to be interpreted flexibly, according to what is likely to be available for the subject being discussed. The general need for WP:Verifiability is policy, but the details for WP:Reliable Sources is a guideline. DGG (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- While, I take DGG's point, I don't think that we are setting the bar too high here. I was looking for, and couldn't find, things like PC Gamer or Gamespot, and came up empty. Indeed I didn't notice a subtantial review from even a blog type source, though I may have missed one. Most of the hits are capsule size reviews or comments on the recent marketing campaign. The games existence is certainly verifiable, though given the lack of linkable (as opposed to in game) documentation alot of the content in the article may not be. I would encourge DGG to specify what sources he feels are adequate since I didn't find any, either in my search or cited in the article detailed enough to base a full article on even assuming arguendo that blogs are reliable enough for this type of content. Eluchil404 (talk) 20:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the article, this ongoing discussion and my own (internet) research - there is a complete lack of independent, reliable, sources. From Wikipedia:Verifiability: "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.". Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Sources, an accepted Wikipedia guideline gives dozens of accepted reliable sources for video games and there are likely more out there, this game does not appear to have been covered by any of them. I do not think a subjective judgement - unsupported by sources - of a topic's importance or usefulness can be used to justify a Wikipedia article on that topic, anything and everything could be considered important or useful to someone. If a band is playing in my local bar it would be important to the local community and it would be useful to know about them, if the only coverage of them is their MySpace page then I would not think Wikipedia should have an article on them. Guest9999 (talk) 01:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this comment. I think discussion of subjective notions like how "interesting" a topic is do have their places in deletion discussions, but only in marginal cases. This article, as it stands, falls very solidly in the "no reliable sources" zone, and it is seeming increasingly unlikely that any will show up. Cazort (talk) 00:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe that such a game does have potential to be more than just locally known, now that they are running ads on YouTube. And I bet that if curious web surfers want more information, and they don't find it on Wikipedia, they might just create another page. GoldDragon (talk) 03:49, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you 100% that such a game has the potential to be more than locally known. But Wikipedia's notion of notability is not based on potential, it's based on reality. If this game later attracts attention and generates coverage in reliable sources then it becomes notable--but unless there are sources that haven't been presented here (and I searched and could not find them) it doesn't come anywhere near wikipedia's standards for notability. Cazort (talk) 00:09, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete unless reliable sources are found. The article is still essentially unsourced. Of the sources, only this one: [56] is independent of the official site for the game, and it is self-published (a personal site). This hardly establishes notability. The people arguing to keep have not found sources. I think they are going to need to find sources or explain why the current sources are adequate, in order for us to consider their recommendations to keep this article. Cazort (talk) 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - No references, no information that doesn't read like a manual to the game, nothing outstanding about the page that warrants an article. The toilet cubicle at North Sydney Station has had over 160000 users, yet it doesn't have an article.--rakkar (talk) 15:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest redirecting to Massively multiplayer online game, rather than deleting it, as non-editors can't easily retrieve deleted pages. GoldDragon (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Palatas[edit]

This actor has only one major role and I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Fails WP:ENTERTAINER. Iowateen (talk) 18:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing out there about him. Fences and windows (talk) 03:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can find enough to confirm that he exists, and he does portray Shaggy in the Scooby Doo TV series, but they're all trivial mentions - not enough to build an article, especially about a BLP. Somno (talk) 06:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Some minor coverage, but nothing approaching substantial coverage in independent sources, so doesn't meet notability requirements. Dawn Bard (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No significant coverage to indicate notability. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:31, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snow delete. Too soon I'm afraid; doesn't seem to meet notability per WP:ENTERTAINER. -- Banjeboi 21:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Delete arguments are more numerous and more convincing, particularly as the one keep voter admits that we lack secondary sources. Obviously no prejudice against recreation if this art movement becomes more notable and receives coverage in reliable sources in the future. Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Play art[edit]

This has been tagged for original research and other problems for over a year with no improvements. This completely falls under original research. Perhaps some information could be relocated under different articles (Interactive art, relational art etc) but the term itself appears to be a neologism freshacconci talktalk 18:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 18:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are plenty of references to a "ludic" element in art, as it is often called, but claims to be a distinct art form are not supported by the article. Johnbod (talk) 20:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nice idea, but it's based entirely on the Play Art website, which pulls together these disparate strands to try to create a movement. Without secondary sources referencing this movement, and I can find none, this is a non-starter. Original research and non-notable. Fences and windows (talk) 03:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Play Art is an “underground” art movement with hundreds of artists involved. Conventional art museums shy away from this art form since they cannot deal with the deterioration that is caused by playful interactivity. There is also a negative attitude towards play. Consequently there are no further secondary sources besides the one listed; Flemming (http://www.bookfinder.com/author/hanns-theodor-flemming). There are numerous Websites by artists and other sources that contain references to play art, even as titles. One external link is listed. Since they do not offer any explanations they are of no real interest. A Google search for “play art” yields 415,000 results. Last but not least, the city of Berlin was in the beginning stages of building a specific Museum of Play Art. Because of the worldwide economic crisis this project may never happen. The international list of artists was continuously growing and reached more than 1,000. This is a condensed summery of reasons why the Play Art entry should not be deleted. Blackletters (talk) 14:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A substantial number of those Google hits refer to children playing, a play called "Art", and other irrelevant hits across punctuation marks. A tiny, tiny number actually refer to the movement. The Flemming book link you posted doesn't mention Play Art. Do you have any sources on the museum; we can't just take your word for it. If you want to include mention of links being play and art using reliable sources like this[57][58] and without any POV pushing of this non-notable institution, do it at Play (activity). Fences and windows (talk) 21:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There were a number of play art exhibitions in Berlin and elsewhere. I will get back to you as soon as possible. Blackletters (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I remain unconvinced. We play music and we do art work...Modernist (talk) 23:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The term isn't a neologism: a 1977 glossary of art terms states that "the expressions 'Game Art', 'Toy Art', 'Play Art' and 'Ludic Art' refer, in most instances, to games, toys and playthings made by artists; an exhibition of such works entitled 'Play Orbit' was held in 1969 at the ICA, London." [59] A 1992 reprint also contains the term: [60]. Herbert Read wanted the ICA to be an "adult play centre" and in 2008 a conference was held on that theme [61]. Admittedly, none of that's got anything to do with the content of this article, and the claim that it's "a new art form" certainly doesn't hold up.--Ethicoaestheticist (talk) 16:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good finds. All great material for a section of Play (activity). Fences and windows (talk) 17:20, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete as A7. The JPS ^{talk to me} 18:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced ball[edit]

Why there is no CSD category for products is a mystery. If there were, there would be no need for this nomination of an unreferenced, advert-like article on a non-notable flash game. Good-faith web and news searches turned up no reliable source coverage of this product. Bongo matic 17:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by "Why there is no CSD category for products is a mystery." ?? You probably don't understand but this is NOT non-notable flash game!!! It is probably first complete 3D flash game with physical engine similar to well known game Ballance running on the desktops. .. and nowadays everyone can play it on the web! The game is NOT any commercial product. It is free to play for anyone. So what are yous suggestions ? How can I make it right to have published this article ? --Slando (talk) 18:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)Slando[reply]

Has anyone covered it in reliable sources? Third-party reviews? News articles? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A7 which, if I'm not mistaken, does apply to products. Either way, it's web content which does fall under A7. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 18:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The consensus is that the article should be kept as media coverage exists though it needs to be cleaned up. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fireflies festival[edit]

non-notable festival. References are all to blogs, which are of course the most reliable sources in existence. Ironholds (talk) 20:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - The Hindu is certainly a reliable source, and there seem to be a few more hits there. It's a start at least. Jfire (talk) 20:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. It seems notable but the article has some serious issues. If it could be re-written by someone with a sound knowledge of the subject, with WP:RS, it should be kept. HJMitchell You rang? 15:05, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are a couple of reliable sources as discussed above. They should be included in the article and yes it needs a huge cleanup. In addition there are plenty of notable performers. Lastly, thank goodness no one was injured by the scorpion last year. Drawn Some (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's enough news hits:[62]. Fences and windows (talk) 03:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the media coverage presented by Fences and windows. The article needs to be cleaned up, not thrown out. Pastor Theo (talk) 10:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:14, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Puven Pather[edit]

Appears not to pass WP:ENTERTAINER, all TV/film roles are as extras or very minor parts and practically all sources on the web appear to be sourced from IMDB, AMG or the like - doesn't appear to be anything actually about him. The only thing that makes me suspect any notability at all is that the entry appears to be copied from another language wiki (Spanish?) which makes me think that there might be non-English sources out there. Black Kite 15:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nominator. One user created this article and it contains this sentence: "With Puven's varied skillset he is a great asset to any production." If there is any question as to why this article exists that should answer it. Drawn Some (talk) 21:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hyperbole is easy to remove per WP:CLEANUP, so I will do so now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after having visited the article, removed hyperbole, cleaned up the format some, and sourced his being an award winning director. I am not at all impressed with his long career as a stuntman, but he's making waves as a filmmaker. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep per awards for The Shot, the 20 year stunt career is impressive if not notable. pohick (talk) 02:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:23, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 05:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the references do not establish notability. They are mostly not WP:RS, and/or not significant coverage, and/or not actually about Puven Pather. Dlabtot (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: Few web-based references, but notable (just) per pohick. Mark Hurd (talk) 10:38, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already Gone (Kelly Clarkson song)[edit]

This is a future single supported by no reliable sources, therefore failing WP:CRYSTAL, WP:HAMMER and WP:NSONGS. Aspects (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Already hit #46 on Billboard's "hot digital songs" chart - so must have already been released.Greedyhalibut (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. Unlikely redirect term, Hot Digital isn't a major chart, song hasn't been covered in sources yet. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:NSONGS until more sources are available. --J^mundo 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 15:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Song was never said to be next single, it was said by Clarkson at a concert 'It MIGHT be a single'. Clarkson has also had other songs chart that weren't singles. Just becauser a song gets airplay or sales doesn't mean it is or will be a single. Any song can get on radio or sell digitally.Alankc (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is #70 on the Hot 100 - I think the Hot 100 is only singles. Doesn't make it notable, but it may be notable by the time this AFD is closed.Greedyhalibut (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the ref's that were added post AfD nomination. It has charted, it's references, and there is more than a snow balls chance that the article can be expanded on in the near future. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 22:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

all of that is noted on the album's page, it charte briefly and ropped right off. IT's also a false statement that Clarkson announced it as the next single at a concert, those were not her words, therefor, it' ssimply an article based on false information. If the song does become a single, an article can be created then. Seems like everyone wants to be the first to create a new article, like it makes them famous or something, this is yet another example of that. Alankc (talk) 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The page can always be recreated. As of March 30, 2009, the current single is "I Do Not Hook Up". If a new single was announced, it would be on Clarkson's Web site. Since there is nothing else following, I say it's still the current single. "Already Gone" is not and the page has no merit until it is. However, I am also partially for a Keep if the song is actually charting, but the page would need more than just chart info - which by itself could go into the album info page. The page would also need to be rewritten. CycloneGU (talk) 23:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is standing in limbo, i've redirected the page to Kelly Clarkson Alankc (talk) 13:57, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Icewedge (talk) 01:43, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in Asia[edit]

This is just a big glom of lists like list of supermarket chains in Bahrain which has already been deleted. Superchain (talk) 13:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Are you saying that the entries aren't notable? Most of these are blue links, meaning that an article exists on Wikipedia for the particular chain. Yeah, I know, there are people who will say "a category works better" -- as if we had to make a choice between a category or a list, one or the other. Some folks, myself included, find it easier to navigate with a list than to run through a maze of categories and subcategories. Not everyone thinks supermarkets are important, I suppose; for most of us, we go to them to add to collections that we build inside our homes. Mandsford (talk) 14:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Account seems to be a SPA. There is a precedent that similar lists are verifiable and maintainable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The nominator is Hilary T. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the Bahrein article, these are notable. DGG (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedia listing of notable entities. Edison (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "why was this even nominated?" :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Superchain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been indefinitely blocked as a ban-evading sockpuppet.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. This is an uncontroversial, speedy close that meets Wikipedia:Speedy keep. Clearly worthy of an article. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of supermarket chains in the United Kingdom[edit]

Wikipedia is NOT a list; as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain Superchain (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia is not a list? What does that mean? Maybe the "L" key not working on the keyboard. I'm not sure the reason for nomination. Most, users prefer to go to a list in order to navigate through the articles, and Wikepedia has lists crawling out its ears. Mandsford (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See WP:CLN for the logic.
The thing about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of supermarket chains in Bahrain is that it doesn't create a precedent, because of WP:OCE.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 15:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It doesn't create a precedent, but it does create systemic bias. Dr B Badger (talk) 09:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Account seems to be a SPA. There is a precedent that similar lists are verifiable and maintainable. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Alright then Superchain, why is there a List Class if Wikipedia is not a list? And why is your name Superchain? It sounds like your name should be deleted. A bloke called Andrew^Convos_{My Messies} 15:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think the nom wants to prove a point. Salih (talk) 18:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike the Bahrein article, these are notable. DGG (talk) 19:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Encyclopedic listing of notable entities. Edison (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep as it is providing concise encyclopedic information linking notable chains. PaulJones (talk) 13:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Price check for a snowball on Aisle 4-- BTW, would all of these be called the British Aisles? Mandsford (talk) 16:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per "why was this even nominated?" :) Jenuk1985 | Talk 10:58, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Bahrein article didn't have any sources, not even in the first two of the listed chains. This one is slightly better sourced, but still crap. Without references no list. Without additional info, it's nothing a bit of recategorization can't fix. I'm all for lists, but this is the wrong way to go about it. - Mgm|^(talk) 16:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nominator, ({user5|Superchain}}, has been indefinitely blocked as a vandal and sockpuppet.--BlueSquadronRaven 21:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Deleted (G7). Non-admin closure. Esradekan Gibb (talk) 13:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ebony Road[edit]

Non notable future release per WP:CRYSTAL BigDunc^Talk 13:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Yes, here are the references: http://ebonyroad.blogspot.com/ http://addymiller.blogspot.com/ (the film is mentioned)

The film will be mentioned in next weeks park news as well as on 'Brit Films' http://www.britfilms.com/ and imdb. Please just wait a few weeks and then you will see thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangleys (talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. It may become notable closer to its release, but I can't find any speculation on it, and Dangleys, those references you provided are to unreliable sources. Tim meh ! 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a huge shame, and rather annoying as I will just have to put it back on next week! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dangleys (talk

Don't worry, that what WP:CSD#G4 is for. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability per WP:NFF & WP:CRYSTAL. Lacks significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nigeria–Serbia relations[edit]

google news search only seems to show up sporting competitions [63]. the Serbian govt website discusses relationship with Yugoslavia rather than present day Serbia [64] LibStar (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for two reasons. First, no reliable sources indicate significance to the relationship. Second, while it would be appropriate to discuss Yugoslavia if relevant (since Serbia is its successor state), there's no evidence Nigeria had well-developed relations with Yugoslavia; indeed, even its relations with the USSR were generally tenuous - it was a Western-oriented country. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - 2 x embassy, include also Nigeria–Yugoslavia relations -- Petri Krohn (talk) 06:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources discuss the relationship between Serbia and Nigeria. The article as is is entirely unsourced, and i can find no sources on my own that establish this as a notable relationship.Bali ultimate (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Backflip (song)[edit]

Yet another non-notable Raven-Symone single that won't stay redirected because of fans undoing the redirects. Fails WP:NSONGS: never charted (note that Radio Disney is not a valid chart per WP:Record charts and WP:BADCHARTS). "Sources" are one PR interview on MTV, one passing mention in a tour promotional article, plus marketplace listings with copies of the single for sale. —Kww(talk) 13:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and creation-protect per nom. The song is not notable, and these fans seem very intent on recreating the article. Tim meh ! 15:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per Timmeh, non-notable song that slobbering Disney fanboys/girls keep recreating because they refuse to understand WP:N and WP:BADCHARTS. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Page protect per all of above arguments. Drawn Some (talk) 19:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and I hear that Salar de Uyuni is lovely this time of year. I concur with the above arguments, doesn't meet notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and pound Yamh91 (talk · contribs) with clue stick vigorously. JuJube (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hungary – Sri Lanka relations[edit]

no evidence of notable relations. google news search doesn't show much [72] LibStar (talk) 12:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any small amount of relevant information can be moved to either country's foreign relations article. Tim meh ! 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - notability is not established by reliable sources. Don't be fooled by all the redlinks - they're generally nonentities, or if not, a single visit is the stuff of news, not evidence of anything more. "Hungary and Sri Lanka far from each other" just about sums it up. And by the way, can we stop flagging this kind of stuff for "rescue"? What exactly is there to "rescue" here? - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - marginally notable. A separate article is better than duplicating content in two articles, one for each country, which would encourage forking. This way it appears in Category:Bilateral relations of Hungary and in Category:Bilateral relations of Sri Lanka Aymatth2 (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per fine improvements recently made by Aymatth2. FeydHuxtable (talk) 20:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The newly added coverage is significant and establishes the passing of WP:NOTABILITY. --Oakshade (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the new trade and investment section seems WP:NOT#NEWS. countries receive trade delegations all the time. LibStar (talk) 00:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. I have removed the heading - but not the content, which seems to flow with the previous content. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[73][74][75][76][77][78][79] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The content in the article makes it clearly notable. Dream Focus 06:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article as is entirely hangs on primary sources. No reliable independent sources have seen fit to adress this relationship in any depth beyond the trivial; a blizzard of foreign office press releases of the sort "Hungary and Sri Lanka agree to harmonize import tax regimes" or whatever should not obscure that this fails the GNG. Neither country keeps an embassy in the other and except in cases of war, when two countries care this little about each other, we should follow their lead.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a few newspaper sources from English-language Sri Lankan papers. These meetings and agreements are typically reported by the press. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep - these countries have an official relationship and the sources now in the page meet the requirements of WP:N. Smile a While (talk) 17:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources, useful information. It could still use a little tidy up, but it should definitely be kept. HJMitchell You rang? 19:14, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 01:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Colombia–Hungary relations[edit]

random combination. non resident embassies. no evidence of notable relations. LibStar (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Any small amount of relevant information can be moved to either country's foreign relations article. Tim meh ! 15:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment but Colombia exports what the Europeans crave, and Hungary is no exception. -- Hoary (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources indicating a significant relationship are lacking. To the extent Colombian cocaine shipments to Hungary are notable, Illegal drug trade in Colombia or Cocaine#In_Europe can mention it - in any case, the book mentions Poland, the Czech Republic and Russia in the same line, so there's nothing special about exports to Hungary in particular. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All very true. But in the "globalized" world of today, I'd have thought the relationship between a nation of ten million people and another of forty-five million would have notability, at least as this word is understood outside WP. As for WP-style "notability", perhaps one or other of the projects alerted below can come up with evidence to put this matter within shouting distance of, say, Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon (FA). -- Hoary (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You may want to read the guideline you're citing, rather than assuming that any thing that is arguably important necessitates its own article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 01:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Thank you, but I have read it and am fairly familiar with it. I fully realize that it allows Mystical Ninja Starring Goemon but (on the strength of the materials proffered so far) doesn't allow Colombia–Hungary relations. That was half of my point. Still, there may be material in Spanish, Hungarian or some other language that an anglophone search in Google would miss. If so, I hope that readers/writers of these languages will find it. -- Hoary (talk) 02:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable relationship. Gigs (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[80][81][82][83][84][85][86] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Bilateral relations page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
A relationship between Kolombia and Hungría seems to have been ruffled by a teevee show (starring Hargitai Bea) titled Senorita Szöszi (or Señorita Szöszi or Szenyorita Szöszi; meaning "Miss Blonde"), or anyway by perceptions or misperceptions thereof. See this in Cambio (Spanish) or this in Index (Hungarian). (Alas I am not competent in either language.) A tempest in a teapot, perhaps; but the teapot seems to exist. -- Hoary (talk) 02:50, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary asked me to give a try -based on the Spanish page, assisted by Google Translate. The principle at first seemed mere exoticism. What nobody would ever have thought of, that's what you want for a tv show. A Hungarian production originally: the plot seems to be that a Hungarian girl met a Columbian guy on vacation somewhere; not enjoying the separation, she goes off to Columbia to be with him. Her experiences there show the disagreeable and peculiar things that the Hungarians like to think are characteristic of the primitive and uncivilized country of Columbia. BUT, the article goes on to say that there's a reason for this: "It is possible that in the Hungarian imagination Colombia is well-remembered for its soap operas, for the failed assassination attempt in 1987 against Enrique Parejo, then ambassador in Budapest, perpetrated by an assassin sent by the mafia. The Hungarians were not used to seeing messages like that."

Well, well, there seems to be something to talk about. If there is here, there can be anywhere. Look at our logo, and think what it implies. The world is not only round, but the parts communicate. DGG (talk) 04:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i speak some spanish. I can find no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any fashion beyond the trivial. No one else has offered up any either. No part of the world is communicating any notability for this article now. That some part of the world might some day generate do this, or that, or the other thing, or wugga wugga wugga, is irrelevant. Delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 04:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Keep (NAC). American Eagle (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

São Tomé and Príncipe – United States relations[edit]

any useful information can be included in Foreign relations of São Tomé and Príncipe. not the US does not have an embassy. LibStar (talk) 12:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - with the recent large number of bilateral relations articles being deleted, this is all starting to seem a bit like arguing a POINT. However on top of that a search on the subject revels that we have multiple sources to justify an article. Such as, A Fox news article, a CTV article, and a Globe and Mail article all of those details the United states response and diplomatic options with the country following a coup. The United States acknowledges relations on a state department website calling relations between the two, "excellent". Here are some more recent articles, such as one detailing post coup relations and an article showing the United States Coast Guard training soldiers in São Tomé found at a trusted news website. And there is yet more articles detailing treaties and pacts such as this one or another detailing military ties. Need I go on because I could do this for hours with all the sources available. -Marcusmax(speak) 13:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It's not WP:POINT at all. Many of these bilateral articles were created by one... "hihgly motivated" editor, and probably should never have been created in the first place. We are just sorting through the mess at this point. Gigs (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I shouldn't have tried to use that policy in this instance, but it is disrupting when the only way to sort through a mess is to delete almost every single time even on articles that have proved that a notable relation exists. That being said I am not accusing the nominator or you of doing this but it does appear to be happening. -Marcusmax(speak) 19:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I think if you count, we are keeping almost as many as we are deleting. Gigs (talk) 23:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and not only because the map is invaluable for showing that Sarah Palin is actually the governor of São Tomé and Príncipe. Verifiably, there's encyclopedic stuff going on between the two nations. -- Hoary (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - to the extent the US reaction to the coup is relevant, could it not be mentioned at 2003 Santomean coup d'état? There doesn't seem to be that much more to this "excellent" (translation: dull) relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bilateral relations task force deletions. – Marcusmax(speak) 19:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are a few countries whose relations with any country however small is notable: the US is certainly one. (others: Russia/USSR, PRC, UK, France, Germany, Japan.) Of course all the material can form part of other articles, but thats true of most WP articles. The reason for articles like these is to get the information together, a reasonable function of an encyclopedia. Nominating article without following WP:BEFORE is not helpful. DGG (talk) 20:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that you can assume that the relations a few countries have with any other country are automatically notable. Drawn Some (talk) 21:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The U.S. has notable relations with every independent country in the World. If the two countries do not have diplomatic relationships, then that is even more notable. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball keep per above Ikip (talk) 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. No "automatic notability" even if one of the countries is a superpower.Edison (talk) 03:17, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[87][88][89][90][91][92][93] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. There isn't a single reference for anything in the article. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced, not sourceable by me, entirely trivial. Let's encourage the writing of articles with actual sources that pass the notability guideline from the get-go.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What a splendid idea! But, um, (i) Are we not encouraging this already? (ii) How would deletion of this article add to the encouragement? -- Hoary (talk) 16:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should not allow the creation of unsourced stubs with no verifiable information, assertions of notability, or reliable sources. This should be actively discouraged in fact, something that wikipedia fails to do at the moment. Enforcing community standards will lead to stronger articles, a better reputation for reliability and accuracy, and attract the sort of editors wikipedia needs, that's how. At any rate, this article is unsourced, trivial and fails GNG; the meta discussion is irrelevant to this afd and i probably shouldn't have brought it up.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am in complete agreement. New articles should still be held to a standard of referenced sources and content for them to be kept. Merely making cookie-cutter articles such as this one was a part of and expecting others to do the work on the presumption that the topic is notable doesn't cut it, and should be stamped out at every turn. If the creator had given us more than a paragraph or two detailing embassies and included a few sources and such for a start for future editors to build on, that would have been infinitely more preferable to the drek we have shown here.--BlueSquadronRaven 17:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Marcusmax. Some of the sources he dug out have now been added as references to establish noteability. There are more that can be added as the article develops. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my usual standards, comments by DGG and Marcusmax. It appears from that the USA has significant bilateral relations with this admittedly small nation. I'm not ready to say that bilateral relations with a superpower is per se notable, but it's darn close. Bearian (talk) 00:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep There are mention of things which give the article valid content. It shows a relationship between the two countries in question. Dream Focus 04:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow! - we even have a 7.2 kB article on United States Ambassador to São Tomé and Príncipe! (+ another one on Eunice S. Reddick) -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but merge the ambassador article into this one. --Reinoutr (talk) 10:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, can't see how this could be a less notable intersection. Stifle (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No? Then you may wish to consider (as just one possibility among many) São Tomé and Príncipe – San Marino relations. -- Hoary (talk) 13:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin: please discount Stifle's non-argument. If you actually take a look at the content of the 3 articles mentioned herein, you will see what I mean. I have never argued that all bilateral relationship articles are notable, but many are, and some are not. This is clearly notable. Bearian (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I added the sources found by Marcusmax(speak) as external links in the article. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have expanded the article. A small state with a strategic position in an area where the US has vital oil interests. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Normally the United States's relations are notable, and I don't really see anything that proves that it is not. Tavix | Talk 21:40, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would agree with DGG that at least the self-designated "world powers" - the USA, the former USSR, and the British Empire during its peak years - had some non-trivial involvement - military, diplomatic, or economic, friendly or unfriendly - with virtually every country in the world during some point in their history. (In a sense, it was the absence of the diplomatic relations between the USA and Mongolia, or between the USSR and Saudia Arabia or South Africa that made those pairs peculiar). If there are no sources online for a particular relation, I am always certain - based on reading newspapers for 30+ years - that some older sources can be found in print form, if one is inclined to do this research (which, of course, should have being done by the original creator of any such article, if s/he felt like expending his efforts on creating it in the first place!) For the other three major countries listed by DGG, the same situation would apply at least with respect to a very large geographic or cultural area. Vmenkov (talk) 01:52, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. One (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Altered to delete per the deletion policy and per OTRS #2009051110036961, which states "Discussions on relatively unknown, non-public figures, where the subject has requested deletion and there is no rough consensus may be closed as delete." I have corresponded with One privately about this and he is fine with this alteration. PeterSymonds (talk) 21:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Seal[edit]

I'm not sure about this one. Seems notable, however unsourced and possibly promotional. Guy0307 (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote this article. Each publication citation is referenced in a professional peer reviewed journal. What is not sourced? This is not promotional as Dr. Seal does not have a private clinical practice she is promotion. Her work benefits veterans directly. Her work is noteworthy as it researches and promotion new treatment methodologies for disabled veterans.

Additionally, this article meets the of Notability in Academics by meeting criteria 1, 2, 6, 7. Please direct other questions to me at rthaler at yahoo dot com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Reidthaler (talk • contribs) — Reidthaler (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure you quite understand what sources are. Take time to read WP:RS and WP:CITE. One more thing: taking a Wikipedia discussion away from Wikipedia to discuss it isn't encouraged around here. (Oh, and I'm undecided about the deletion.) THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article is basically completely unsourced. It is a very detailed c.v. sort of article and I doubt that much detail could be properly verified. If the article is kept it needs to be severely cleaned and pruned. I am also concerned about Reidthaler's conflict of interest in promoting Karen Seal. Drawn Some (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. As noted by Guy0307 and Drawn Some, the SPA who created the article apparently made a messy attempt at putting up a CV for the subject, with no references or sources. Also, it seems that the subject herself requested deletion of the article. Having said, the subject seems to meet WP:PROF criterion #1 (significant impact in scholarly discipline, broadly construed), although not to the extent that would justify keeping the article against her wish. Citation impact indicates notability; so does news coverage, to a certain extent.--Eric Yurken (talk) 23:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak delete~~ weak keep First, WP:PROF. According to Scopus, she has 23 published peer-reviewed papers,; the highest have 122 citations, (DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200107193450311) then 63, 56, This would often be enough for notability as an academic researcher using criterion 1, except that she isn't the principal author of any of the 3 . Notability according to WP:BIO--similarly not shown. She has apparently requested deletion, but even in a borderline case, it shouldn't be up to the subject. DGG (talk) 03:02, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

checking the Google News articles, very few are about her, and fewer of these are in RSs. The one in Time [94] , however, is significant, and just enough to meet WP:BIODGG (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, her research has received more than enough news coverage ("karen+seal"&cf=all here) to demonstrate notability. I agree this would be borderline if only citation counts were considered, but evidence of impact shows up in other ways. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 06:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it. --Saynara (talk) 01:00, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't know how DGG deduces that she is not the principal author of the papers. If he means first listed author then that is a very different thing. If the subject requests deletion then I support it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

the principal author is either first or last in biomedical papers. Normally it is indicated by the author to whom correspondence should be sent, and is marked. It can be confirmed by seeing which of the authors is the one with the most papers, and the one whose laboratory it is. It never is any of the authors in the middle. DGG (talk) 01:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid that DGG's position on this matter is very wide of the mark and in no way reflects any consensus among scholars. It could be an important issue for those involved with bibliometry but if I reply here the discussion will get lost when the AfD is finalised. I will discuss the matter on my talk page in due course. Xxanthippe (talk) 06:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment. I do not like to focus too much of authorship order because sometimes the senior author is a manager of talented researchers, and not the one originating the ideas. Having said that, DGG is correct about the position of the main (or senior) author’s name in a list of co-authors.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the evidence for this? Xxanthippe (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Weak keep Appears to meet WP:PROF, just. ukexpat (talk) 01:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, plenty of independent coverage. this article, for instance, talks about how she and her colleagues decided to set up a combined primary care/mental health VA clinic for Iraq War veterans. This one places her in the "vanguard of...a public health crusade".--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:54, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added references from Google scholar and news. --Saynara (talk) 12:26, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Hard to say, may meet Academic Notability CriteriaJohndowning (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:It is difficult, if you are not familiar with the particular study, to determine the lead researcher and author. Often, the person listed first in the article is done for political purposes. Please keep this in mind when you make your decision to keep or delete.
Delete for the second time. If the material placed on my talk page is to be believed, the LP had no part in writing the article and wants it deleted. If Osama bin Laden requested deletion of his article on the grounds that it invaded his privacy we would refuse because of his extreme notability. However, in a case of lesser notability such as this, we should defer to Wikipedia's Presumption in favour of privacy see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

The article contains nothing about her private/personal life and is focused entirely on her work, which consists of publicly funded research. The article, if edited properly, would contain nothing that is not already available elsewhere on the internet. Even in its current version there's no blp/privacy problem here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 09:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your sentiments. It is common ground that this article is not of critical importance. The body politic will suffer little detriment by its deletion and the benefit will be that the wishes of a LP are respected. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Have we actually gotten a communication directly from Dr. Seal yet? Or are we just going on what the OP says?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So far as I am aware just on what Reidthaler says. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:00, 10 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep per DGG. Stifle (talk) 18:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Secret of Family Happiness[edit]

Non-notable book, no references LTSally (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find any independent sources on the subject. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was KEEP per WP:SNOW a SPA nomination of an article with sufficient coverage and a dozen unanimous (plus IPS and SPA votes) keeps after 10 hours. ThuranX (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delara Darabi[edit]

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

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

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

Non-notable per ONEEVENT. There are hundreds of people across the world who are at risk of execution for crimes they committed as children (including 130 in Iran) and thousands more that have been executed. There has something of a campaign for her, but that is also not uncommon. She has not done anything notable and her life and death are also not notable (her case raised some interest, but nothing that shows any likelihood of a long term impact). HenrySloane (talk) 11:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC) — HenrySloane (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep I can quickly find Google News hits dating back to 2006. She had been in the public for some time. The execution's response gained significant coverage (this makes the execution notable), with statements being issued by foreign governments for example. In addition, her art seems to have been reported on. Computerjoe 's talk 11:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep. Her life is also notable for her artwork not to mention the execution and controversy over the conviction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.82.204 (talk) 11:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep dont see any reason for deletion. and the reason for deletion seems more like a personal opinion than true facts about this article and the person.--Judo112 (talk) 12:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just keep.--MarkusBJoke (talk) 12:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable? Whoever wrote that can't be serious! Do we value the lives of those so young, so little? Do we adopt what Iran does in all nations across the globe, & put to death those who commit crimes as children? She may not have lived a notable life, but certainly her death, & the way it came about, is notable. The killing of the young like this, by a regime that has even ignored a court-ordered stay of execution, must not be swept under the rug simply because the victim is not considered to be notable enough to have the ending of her life appear in Wikipedia. People everywhere need to know that the killing of the young, is prevelant in our world, despite the fact that all countries, including Iran, have signed an agreement NOT to execute young people for crimes they committed before they turned 18 years of age. Regimes like that in Iran, who violate such International agreements, should be named & shamed, for their disregard for human decency, & the value of human life, especially of the young. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.215.182.110 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 3 May 2009
Keep no reason for deletion. Giovanni-P (talk) 15:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Not notable? This person has been the subject of news article from all over the world, including major newspapers such as The Guardian, Le Figaro, Aftonbladet, Expressen and many more. I'm on the verge of pondering whether the nominator is guilty of disruptive behaviour.JdeJ (talk) 15:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Please note that the nominator created his account with the single purpose of writing this nomination, making the nomination looking even more questionanble. I suggest a speedy keep per WP:SNOW.JdeJ (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest waiting a few more comments from established users before snowballing this Computerjoe 's talk 15:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Deletion Please: Her case has attracted world-wide attention. This article will go a long way in the coming years to show that barbarism existed in some countries even way through the 21st Century. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.74.10.196 (talk) 16:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Her case has attracted world-wide attention. Hdc-en (talk) 16:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per above. rkmlai (talk) 17:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Peltimikko (talk) 17:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Joojoo ra (talk) 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Would all user wishing to express an opinion please justify it. Computerjoe 's talk 19:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I dont how many cases of executed persons from the United States, which is on Wikipedia. Why not one from Iran Covergaard (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Computerjoe 's talk 19:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To closing admin this article is being canvassed on Twitter Computerjoe 's talk 19:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I've read the deletion policy and can see no reason to justify the deletion of this article. She was an important person who was killed against the policies of Iran itself. Something they (and it would seem others) would rather nobody knew about. Unicorn27 (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment My name is Cris Smothers. I am an American actor and activist http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1587214/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AmerAsian that has been following Delara Darabi's case for two years. I can't imagine what would make Delara's wiki get deleted. To so many she is a hero and when we heard of her illegal execution we shed shed tears, lit candles and prayed. David Etebari is the co-founder of Stop Child Executions . Born in Tehran, Iran he has lived in the USA for 30 years. David has written many articles for major internet sites and blogs and he also has created video collages posted on YouTube and Google, some seen by more than 300,000 viewers.. Since the early days of the campaign to save Nazanin Fatehi, David spent countless hours bringing worldwide awareness to the plight of minors facing execution in Iran. He initiated the myspace site for Nazanin Fatehi which was viewed by more than 100,000 visitors. He later created the myspace page for Delara Darabi. The two sites were among the most interactive internet sites to address the issue of minors facing execution. He also initiated the wikipedia pages for Nazanin Fatehi, Delara Darabi and the Stop Child Executions. As the former campaign coordinator and vice president of Stop Child Executions, David played a major role in planning, organization and coordination of the SCE as well as research and editorial of the SCE news updates. David Etebari currently maintains an advisory and support role at SCE. Michael Trepp is an activist that has been following Delara's case for two years. He has two myspace pages and a facebook that has always been dedicated to helping Delara. This beautiful and talented woman needs not to ever be forgotten. George Clooney an American actor and activist had recently been involved with Delara's case and stopping child executions in Iran.

Cris Smothers~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.81.51.192 (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Reply - Your appeal, while impassioned, doesn't really speak to how Wikipedia determines notability. Rest assured, hwoever, that there's no chance this article will be deleted, given the voting by numerous experienced WP editors. Thank you for takign the time to come comment. I suggest you register for an account, and post links of articles about yours' and Clooney's involvement in this particular case to the article's talk page to ensure that it grows with proper citation to back it up. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't even understand why there is a debate about this. She is clearly important and well-known enough to be included. Really. Whoever is trying to delete this article has an ax to grind.--Baruchespinoza (talk) 20:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1. Her case is a famous human rights violation. 2. She is not only famous for her execution, but also for her paintings, some of which have been in international exhibitions. --Jetman (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems that if numerous international bodies are commenting on it, it's notable. ThuranX (talk) 21:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:42, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ashé Journal[edit]

Non-notable, has not been discussed to a sufficient extent in independent reliable sources, in fact, barely mentioned at all. Earlier versions were solely spam- the spam may be cut down now but it's still not notable/mentioned in the press or other publications enough.[95][96]. The only news coverage is reviews of two other books, not Ashe itself, which happen to mention it in parts of the reviews which we cannot see. [97] . Only two scholarly works seemingly independent of Ashe mention it, for the one we can see it's solely as the whereabouts of a cite.[98]. Sticky Parkin 11:39, 3 May 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) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as expected only LC has a copy. DGG (talk) 01:02, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:17, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Coco solid[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Article creator, likely unfamiliar with WP practice, has provided a slew of references at Talk:Coco solid. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:BAND - multiple independent reviews are cited. Some information about chart positions (I assume she's sold a record or two, if the reviews are to be believed) would help, but the notability of the subject is established. Tevildo (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notability not an issue given the large number of reviews. Article quality will improve eventually; WP:Deadline. -moritheil^Talk 22:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, seems to meet WP:NMG, but move to Coco Solid. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Made some slight grammar/punctuation/spelling/wording improvements as part of ARS. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, more of the same and I boldly moved page and AfD. -- Banjeboi 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Valeria Andrews. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Freshly Squeezed (album)[edit]

Disputed prod. Well, technically, already prodded in January and I've prodded again for being a non-notable that fails WP:MUSIC. A debut album only released electronically (on I guess her own label) with the only source before being now-removed myspace links. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And, well only admins can see, but the same person recreated this article one month after the prior prod, but it did improve from being a WP:CRYSTAL-ball projection of the album to its electronic release. Could possibly be considered a G4 situation. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge to Valeria Andrews. I'm not wholly convinced of the artist's notability, but a merge to her article would be in order if she is notable, and if she isn't then it can get deleted along with her article. The album doesn't look independently notable - I could find no significant coverage of it.--Michig (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Unlikely redirect term. While an i-tunes only release doesn't lessen the albums article notability potential, the lack of significant coverage in reliable, third-party, sources sure does. Nothing to merge due to the lack of said RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —--Avant-garde a clue-hexa Chord ² 10:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable album. Nothing useful to merge into the article. Enigma^msg 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of assertion of notability. There aren't any reliable sources in which this is covered significantly. Tim meh ! 23:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge to Valeria Andrews. The album was produced by and contributed to by some pretty big names, including Lady Gaga, Space Cowboy and Dave Aude. The artist's notability should also ensure that the album is kept. At the very least, if the article cannot be added to, it should be merged into Valeria Andrews. Oh, and I don't really see any problem with MySpace as a source as long as the said page is the artist's official one. Tikkuy (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per sources added. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile–Finland relations[edit]

last nomination was a group nomination for AfD. non resident embassies. Finnish govt says nothing about their relations [99]. LibStar (talk) 08:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[100][101][102][103][104][105][106] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Perhaps all the stubs were similar at one point, but not any more.--Moloch09 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator This editor has the exact same reason to delete in 44 other AfDs. Ikip (talk) 05:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please point out the guideline or policy which requires elegant variation in the text when someone is making Keep or Delete arguments regarding a set of articles where the same guidelines or policies lead to their decision in each one. In this case the stubs mostly have the same flaws. Edison (talk) 06:01, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The Allende goverment and the 1973 Chilean coup d'état shaped a whole generation of Finns, and were central to the Taistoist movement. Also, the arrival of Chilean refugees was the largest influx of non-Europeans to Finland upto the date. P.S. - 2 x resident ambassador + state visits. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 07:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete i'll need far better sourcine than petri's claim that a coup in chile "shape a whole generation of Finns". In fact, i'll need reliable sources establishing notability for something that, at the moment, has no sources as a topic. Clear delete.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Keep. It is a stub. Judge it as such. Dream Focus 03:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

stubs still need reliable sources and third party coverage to establish notability. LibStar (talk) 06:11, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least the existence of multiple, independent, non-trivial sources needs to be demonstrated. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete as a nn intersection. Much improved but ~~What little there is here is~~ better handled elsewhere. JJL (talk) 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable intersection of countries. Nothing more to state than the location of embassies, which is a violation of WP:NOTDIR. Stifle (talk) 13:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC) Now neutral, as the article has been amended. Stifle (talk) 19:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I've added a few sources and details on the relationship, but a brief look at Google implies there are probably 15 different topics we could delve into - it seems fairly clear there is a relationship between the two countries. Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 18:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - at least 3 factors from my standards apply: There have ever been permanent ministers or ambassadors between the two countries. The two nations have cooperated in economic, social, environmental, or scientific matters. The two nations have a reasonably significant trade, relative to their respective GDPs. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

do you have any reliable sources to back your claim? I could not find any information on significant trade relationship specifically "two nations have a reasonably significant trade, relative to their respective GDPs". Finland's biggest trading partner in South America is Brazil. and Chile's biggest trading partner in Europe is definitely not Finland. I would not even think Finland is in the top 20 of Chile's trading partners. LibStar (talk) 00:01, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chile is Finland's second-largest trading partner in the region, important enough to send their envoys to have economic summits between the two countries. I'd consider that "significant". Sherurcij ^{(speaker for the dead)} 00:11, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

given that Chile is the 2nd largest economy in South America you might expect that, the key thing here is significant third party coverage proving notability. LibStar (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Passes WP:HEY - 3 good sources (2 in English) attest to the high level of trade: see bird poop & cell phones. Bearian (talk) 13:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have expanded the article to DYK status. Far too many reasons for keep to list here (see Chile–Finland relations). The literature section now also contains reliable independent tertiary sources. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:09, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep following Bearian--Moloch09 (talk) 22:35, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is now established by the sources provided. Europe22 (talk) 23:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notability is now established because sources are provided.--Amore Mio (talk) 00:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks to a number of contributors, it seems to have grown to quite an interesting article now. I am a bit surprised at some editors inserting a "Non-notable, not likely to be found so" text into dozens of AfD discussions, even if the past experience shows that for quite a few such articles other editors quickly found substantial non-trivial information to add. Vmenkov (talk) 02:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:35, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Denmark–Kazakhstan relations[edit]

another random combination. non resident embassies. just some minor trade [107]. LibStar (talk) 08:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no significant coverage, and a visit tells us nothing either way about the significance of the relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 16:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:N and Wikipedeia is not a directory. 203 individual articles or sections on "Foreign relations of" for each of the 200 or so sovereign nations, with a link to current info on their website as to who they have "relations" with are far more encyclopedic that 20,000 of these bilateral stubs with stale info extracted from the website of a country's foreign ministry. Edison (talk) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Closing administrator please note that editor has copy and pasted this argument in 7 AfDs.[108][109][110][111][112][113][114] (As I have copy and pasted this notice also). Ikip (talk) 02:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - And what is your point? The stubs fail the same guidelines. It is proper to point that out, and the "Delete" arguments in each case have as much merit as if only placed in one AFD. Edison (talk) 05:16, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable, not likely to be found so. This article borders on being a mere dictionary entry. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the and Wikipedia:WikiProject International relations/Bilateral relations task force/Deletion page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
Delete since there are no reliable sources that discuss this relationship in any depth that i -- or anyone else that has looked at this article -- have uncovered.Bali ultimate (talk) 14:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would just ask that when opening future AFDs for bilateral relations articles, please inform the relevant WikiProjects (in this case, WikiProject Denmark and WikiProject Central Asia) on their discussion pages. If any group of people might have specialized knowledge which could help add refs and save an article, it would probably be members of the relevant projects, and their input should be solicited. Otebig (talk) 15:10, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The arguments for deletion were somewhat weak; just because he has an attribute that is not necessarily notable does not mean he is not notable. For instance: George W. Bush is a politician. A politician is not notable per se. Therefore, George W. Bush is not notable. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Richard E. Gray[edit]

Non-notable deceased NASA pilot. Subject of article is not mentioned in any other Wikipedia article. Text of article is an exact copy/paste from NASA's website. Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. SharkxFanSJ (talk) 08:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - not just a pilot but a test pilot - test pilots are notable. Puzzled about the not mentioned in any other Wikipedia article when proposer has deleted the entry for Gray in the article San José State University. MilborneOne (talk) 17:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Sorry, you are right - he was originally contained in a (very long) list of "Notable alumni" on the San Jose State University article. What I should have said was that he wasn't contained in any other Wikipedia article in his field. This includes the "Notable Test Pilots" section of Test pilot.

Without disrespect to the late Mr. Gray, I'm not sure that I'd agree that all test pilots are automatically notable to Wikipedia standards. The fact that only one reliable source (his employer) is available about him seems to reinforce this. The accident that lead to his death wasn't particularly notable either. --SharkxFanSJ (talk) 18:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous wikilinks in the article attest to the work he carried out in flight testing. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - While I'd agree that not all test pilots are notable, the ones that achieve significance by flying the more unusual or significant aircraft are. Gray, IMHO, is one of these. AKRadecki^Speaketh 00:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sad that a test pilot died, but no evidence he satisfies WP:BIO. There is no guideline that all test pilots (or mountain climbers, or cave explorers, or balloonists, or daredevils, or anyone else who would have trouble buying life insurance) are inherently notable. If someone dies flying a famous type of airplane, or by falling off a famous mountain, notability is not inherited in either case. Also, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Edison (talk) 03:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article is no way a tribute. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Keep - The AD-1 was a very unusual airplane, and Gray was not just any test pilot, but a research pilot. LeadSongDog come howl 04:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That he was one of the pilots for the AD-1 does not necessarily make him notable. According to the NASA documentation on the plane, Thomas C. McMurtry was the lead test pilot for the project. He might deserve an article. The NYT article merely mentions Grey's death in a single sentence (it was unconnected with the AD-1). Even the NASA page devotes almost all its space to the AD-1, not him. DGG (talk) 23:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG Keep The life story of this test pilot eminently qualifies him as notable. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:19, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Appears to be mentioned in Outstanding young men of America By Montgomery Junior Chamber of Commerce - otherwise there doesn't seem to be a lot of third party sources to demonstrate notability.Nigel Ish (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have it on good authority that Dick Gray, as well as his father, test pilot William Gray, have both been nominated for the Aerospace Walk of Fame in Lancaster, CA. IMHO, that alone would merit inclusion, and it is a pity there is not more on him. Really, build better articles from the existing rather than tear them down! Check-Six (talk) 06:24, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lizzie Massey[edit]

A7 Nonnotable - see talkpage, author username & the logs. Fails Wikipedia:MUSIC#Criteria_for_musicians_and_ensembles. Kwiki (talk) 07:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is badly written, but a basic Google search finds plenty of reliable indepth sources "Lizzie+Massey"+Glastonbury search about her to meet WP:GNG (also WP:MUSIC criterion 1). I'll attempt a rewrite. - Mgm|^(talk) 13:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why doesn't the stupid link work? - Mgm|^(talk) 13:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 13:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Try this search. Drawn Some (talk) 23:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep If this article is to be kept, it needs objective sources and a rewrite from someone is not the subject or fan! Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--CyberGhostface (talk) 02:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. With no releases and only a few gigs and a battle of the bands under her belt, she's not notable. Fences and windows (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:MUSIC. Only claim of notability appears to be predecated on her being part of a manufactured band which was only brought together for a one-off competition winners slot at Glastonbury - ergo no independent notability. Only press coverage is in the Daily Telegraph which was the paper that ran the competition so does not qualify as being an independent source and the local paper of another band member where the coverage of Lizzie is incedental. Nancy ^talk 09:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep or "nomination withdrawn", take your pick. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of pharmacy associations[edit]

This article is a complete violation of WP:EL and WP:NOT. It is a linkfarm - with hundreds of external links, has no prose text explaining the list, and so serves as nothing but a directory. Reformatting it to make it not a link farm would still be a directory, and removing the directory style to only include notable associations would leave nothing but a handful of entries. This list could be fixed, but if nobody does then it's better off deleting it until someone can recreate it as a frest start in a style agreeing with wikipedia policies. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn after massive cleanup. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —Ricky81682 (talk) 09:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of medical organisations. I have removed all external and red links -- not much left. —G716 <^T·_C> 13:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a directory. Superchain (talk) 13:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are scores (perhaps hundreds) of articles of the type "List of ..." that are collections of articles with a theme. These are not generally considered directories. —G716 <^T·_C> 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The account is a Hilary T sockpuppet. Uncle G (talk) 23:41, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have removed all external and redlinks and added more articles to the list —G716 <^T·_C> 16:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unlike some more limited articles, these are notable. Totally appropriate list. DGG (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, cleaned up. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 20:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in present form as a list of notable associations it is notable and verifiable. Drawn Some (talk) 20:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

K1a1b1a[edit]

Queried speedy delete. Better get this article looked at by a geneticist. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:10, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The PubMed sources are genuine. Tevildo (talk) 09:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources are genuine and this is genuine work of encyclopedic value - it was just badly written but I have made an attempt to clean it up as I have some knowledge in this area. It could do with more fleshing out but I think it is a good stub. Please don't delete it!!

Hatoulah (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. By the time I looked at it, it is sourced and cleaned up somewhat. Sifaka ^talk 17:32, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. —WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reference to the original research is there. mtDNA haplgroup K1a1b1a is found among 19% of Polish Ashkenazi Jews. The average branch length of mutations within K1a1b1a is only one - indicating a very recent entry (origin) in the Ashkenazi Jewish population. This fact is actually quite significant not just for "genetic genealogy" but for Ashkenazi Jewish genetics in general, and the study of genetic diseases, because it shows the limited number of total recent ancestors for Ashkenazi Jews. Even though this is a very specific part of the mitochondrial tree, it is of significance and merits a separate article. This article may need some expansion and editing.

Request I do have one change - the article should be named "Haplogroup K1a1b1a (mtDNA)". How do we change the name?
- Agreed. It needs to follow the naming of other mtDNA Haplogroup related articles.--RebekahThorn (talk) 20:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Archæogenetics ^TALK 17:34, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Good research by SharkxFanSJ; the consensus doesn't seem to be to keep, though. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Swanston estates[edit]

Likely non-notable neighbourhood. Samuel Tan 05:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep - the neighborhood is recognized by the City of Sacramento and is mentioned in Sacramento, California. I've gone ahead and cleaned it up into a respectable stub article. There are other neighborhoods in the city that have well-developed articles, and this has the same potential.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 09:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No assertion of importance or significance. Even after being cleaned up, the article consists of a description of the boundaries, mentions that is behind a mall, gives the name of the elementary school located there, and the zip code. Drawn Some (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Neighborhoods (or zipcodes, for that matter) are not inherently notable.The "courtesy notability" given to villages does not includeu every developer's tract in a city. Is there any evidence it satisfies [[WP:N}}?Edison (talk) 03:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory search of Google News reveals:

This neighborhood is politically active. Its residents have formed not only a neighborhood association, but also a political action group called Swanson Estates Against Crime. The PAC has offered endorsements for candiates for local office and weighed in on other local issues.
The neighborhood is also mentioned, by name, regularly in the police blotter.
The local paper, the Sacramento Bee, seems to mention this area faily often without need to define it to its readers.

As I mentioned above, the Sacramento City Government has recognized this as an official neighborhood in their city, including the borders laid out in the article. Per Wikipedia:Notability (populated places), neighborhoods are normally excluded as non-notable because of a lack of multiple reliable sources, lack of official recognition, unofficial boundaries, and the fact that some neighborhoods are simply creations of those that live there. None of those appear to be issues here.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I know that Wikipedia:Notability (populated places) is only a proposed policy, but my points also speak to the WP:N.--SharkxFanSJ (talk) 06:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this place has gotten third party coverage enough that we can write about its history, politics, concerns, etc. I cited one article with some history, there are many more in the 1990s, especially about clashes between the neighborhood and city officials over traffic issues, the subject of many full-length articles. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Blessinger[edit]

Not enough secondary sources to fulfill notability criteria. A Fullbright scholar and "Honorary Rotarian." Is a Fullbright scholar automatically notable? Probably not, in my opinion. Contested prod. Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - This definitely walks the line between notability and non-notability, but I'm leaning towards a delete. Firstly, I don't think being a Fullbright Scholar entails notability simply because it is not a membership of a prestigious society per WP:PROF, but seems to describe someone who has received a grant from the Fulbright Program. Secondly, I can't find evidence that his research has made a significant impact (see this google search). Thirdly, the highest he got in the corporate world seems to be team leader, with a intra-company award. In short, I don't think there's enough evidence for notability. -Samuel Tan 06:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - it does walk the line per WP:PROF (lack of published research), but I think part of the notability claimed is being the first (only?) educator in the technical college system in US to be selected a Fulbrighter. No apparent impact in the published research area but does appear to have had a somewhat significant impact in the higher education system in Georgia per the references - WP:NPF, there does seem to be "Significant coverage is more than trivial but may be less than exclusive". The article needs to be edited to remove any unverifiable statements/claims to not oeverstate the notability... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.184.35.42 (talk) 08:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. This user has made few or no other edits outside of this topic.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Further Note. This IP traces to Denmark, the subject's residence, which raises the possibility of COI?--Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 03:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing comes up in Google scholar. LibStar (talk) 13:37, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)\[reply]
Delete. Adjunct prof. at Capella University who passes neither WP:PROF nor WP:BIO. The Fulbright award, although prestigious, is not at the level required for WP:PROF criterion #2.--Eric Yurken (talk) 01:08, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Notable as neither an academic nor an executive. DGG (talk) 02:11, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or delete I could not figure out whether this person has a Ph.D. degree. Otherwise looks ok with accomplishments --Saynara (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence of a Ph.D. Does that mean a delete !vote for you?--Jwilkinsen Jr (talk) 22:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes - I'm afraid. If you are a professor, I would except a Ph.D. for wiki notability. There could be good writers without a Ph.D., but still be wiki notable. May be they do not want to apply for a Ph.D or they do not have time to apply for a Ph.D.--Saynara (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Have to agree this one is marginal. If a better case is made I may change my mind. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Definite Delete. Does not come close to meeting notability criteria. Johndowning (talk) 18:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Delete Marasmusine (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshot[edit]

Dictionary definition which already exists in Wikitionary (contested PROD). — Tivedshambo (t/c) 05:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Add to BJAODN and delete. ~EdGl ★ 23:25, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nonnotable neologism. Wikipedia is WP:NOT for terms made up while playing a video game one day. Edison (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MuZemike 17:15, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in current state as an unverifiable neologism. Though an alternative might be to redirect to scrotum if we're talking about deez nutz. MuZemike 01:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Wikipedia is not for stuff WP:MADEUP one day, and even so, it's not a dictionary. There isn't really much to write about here besides a quick explanation of the word, and even then, it's not like it's a word that's had any mainstream coverage. Randomran (talk) 18:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Urban Dictionary is thataway. JuJube (talk) 12:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was boldy revert and keep. This article was about an Indian film until December 2008, when it was unilaterally changed by Saliktaurus123. I have now restored the previous version of the article. Non-admin closure. PC78 (talk) 14:10, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aanchal[edit]

Advertisement for magazine of questionable notability Samuel Tan 05:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. The issue of merging can be discussed on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hanukkah Harry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Granted this is was a SNL character, but only a minor one. No justification exists to make this character a separate article outside of the article of all obscure SNL characters. There is no independent signficance of this character either. Silk Knot (talk) 04:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the referenced "Other appearances" section suggests outside notability and coverage. if nothing else this should be a redirect to an article on SNL skits. --Chiliad22 (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Short-lived recurring characters on Saturday Night Live, where there is already a section on Hanukkah Harry. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a policy- or guideline- based reason for deletion. As far as I can tell, the information is verifiable, cited to several reliable sources, it adheres to a neutral point-of-view, and meets the nutshell description of the notability guideline. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 22:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Keep--not the most notable of SNL sketches, but RS'ing seems adequate for V and N. Pretty short article, though, so it could probably benefit from a merge with other similarly notable but short articles on SNL characters. Jclemens (talk) 00:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gokhan Yildizli[edit]

No sources to indicate this is anything but a non-notable mixed martial artist who have only fought in minor promotions in Belgium and Russia. His only win is unsourced (or at least not on his record on Sherdog.com). --aktsu ^(t / c) 04:28, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —--aktsu ^(t / c) 04:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. User appears to be trying to promote this individual as well as a gym. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 07:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:BIO. Iowateen (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't look notable to me. Or particularly successful... Peridon (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 08:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted (G3) by Nyttend. Non-admin closure. Deor (talk) 04:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Jama[edit]

Obvious Hoax - no such NBA player Greedyhalibut (talk) 03:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Hoax based on copy/paste of LeBron James. So tagged. Deor (talk) 03:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Closed early per WP:SNOW. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:28, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kid Springs[edit]

Also nominating:

The Notepad
The Devil's Child Vol.1
Cocaine City Records

Non-notable artist, albums and record label. Lack of substantial coverage from reliable sources; all fail WP:NM. — Σ xplicit 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:15, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All, coi issues. Nakon 04:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per above. Enigma^msg 05:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the lot, no notability per WP:MUSIC, & WP:CORP for the label. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 10:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - shameless self-promotion. ikh (talk) 17:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not listed in any reputable source. Rirunmot (talk) 21:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Anarchodin (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm unable to find any non-trivial reliable sources. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yogaball[edit]

I placed a prod on this article because it seemed like a made up game. Some other member put a prod2 on it. The article creator removed the prods because he said that it was a real game and he included a link. The link is to the official site and I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Iowateen (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, google searches with the parameters of "yogaball" and "yogaball game" both only came up with the "official" site.— Oli ^OR Pyfan! 03:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete reference provided looks professional enough but does nothing to dissuade me of the notion that this falls under the realm of WP:NFT. JuJube (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower Society[edit]

Fails to meet notability on its own; lack of any sources; repeats scanty information already contained in Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom.--Jeffro77 (talk) 12:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per lack of notability or independent reliable sources. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses or redirect if there's nothing needing merging. Deletion is nonsensical, as the search term should redirect to a sensible Jehovah's Witness article. Jclemens (talk) 03:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's note: I'd be happy with the suggestion to delete content off page and redirect to Jehovah's Witnesses. LTSally (talk) 04:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses, which covers this and other related subjects. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Corporations of Jehovah's Witnesses I'm not clear that there such a thing as a Watchtower Society or its just a handy bit of shorthand. The external link in the article points to a page which credits the Watchtower Society of ..., New York and W. S. ..., Pennsylvania. So a single line mentioning the shorthand is sufficient. Indeed it is already delet with very well in the corporation article.--Salix (talk): 22:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Watchtower Movement[edit]

Non-notable subject; no meaningful references; no proof of existence of this so-called movement; little sense to content LTSally (talk) 02:39, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Say What?! This article is an A3 candidate, as I can't really fathom exactly what it's trying to say. Jclemens (talk) 03:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete: Wasn't aware this (orphaned, poor quality, unsourced) article existed. There has never been any formal 'Watchtower Movement', and the article is clearly a hodge podge of Bible Student movement/Jehovah's Witnesses/Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania.--Jeffro77 (talk) 03:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this complete WP:BOLLOCKS.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hopelessly incoherent article. I am surprised it survived so long without detection. Pastor Theo (talk) 21:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Granahan[edit]

Found no coverage in independent sources to show notability (WP:GNG). --aktsu ^(t / c) 02:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since this person is not notable. No coverage in reliable sources, no belts. Drmies (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since he's not notable. Afkatk (talk) 12:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't Delete The Granimal is doing and has done alot for catch wrestling. He runs an association that holds events and promotes the sport, he's writing a book with Erik Paulson one of the top trainers in mma and he's working with Red Line Films on a new television series. He's very notable to insiders in the business and is becoming more well known to fight fans through his organization American Combat Association —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey gino (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could technically fall under csd A7 non of the less this does not meet wp:n Staffwaterboy ^{Critique Me} ^Guestbook ^{Hate Comments} 20:51, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You would have to be INSANE to delete an article on Granimal. So many of the people on Wikipedia know nothing about real wrestling. The Granimal is one of the last links to carnival wrestling. He's the real deal in already dying art. Whoever posted any kind of desire to delete him from here has an agenda and doesn't want him and Erik Paulson to be successful with their book. He's very influential in the business as a trainer and personality and as a professional wrestler he's the best worker currently active in the independents. Delete Granimal? Why not delete Karl Gotch, Lou Thesz, Billy Robinson. Heck why not just delete any reference to catch wrestling at all on Wikipedia which is what some would like to happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pacmanskins (talk • contribs) 22:22, 4 May 2009 (UTC) — Pacmanskins (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment Actually no all the 3 you named are notable as the 3 you mentioned have held numerous championships recognized by some of the top organisations in wrestling and have been inducted into a notable Hall of Fame which is recognized by Wikipedia. Afkatk (talk) 05:56, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet WP:BIO. Enigma^msg 19:25, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Basilia Sayoto[edit]

Notability and verifiability in question. I cannot find any reliable sources in Google Books and Google regarding this person. The claims of notability in the article isn't verifiable as well. Should the claims are even somehow verified, the subject still fails notability standards as notability is not inherited. Lenticel ^(talk) 01:44, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I find nothing, not even anything unreliable. Plus, the article isn't really in legible English, so that doesn't help, and it has no sources. Delete. Drmies (talk) 02:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:N. Iowateen (talk) 02:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When You Told Me You Loved Me (Jessica Simpson song)[edit]

Unreleased single, fails WP:NSONGS. Efforts to install a redirect to the parent album have been thwarted. —Kww(talk) 01:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Irresistible (album) per nom. Powers ^T 01:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an unlikely redirect term, fails notability per WP:MUSIC#Songs. No awards, no chart, no covers. Nothing to merge due to the lack of WP:RS. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 09:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan --Anarchodin (talk) 17:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. DS (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skypar[edit]

Contested prod. Self-admitted neologism, allegedly created (the term, not just the article) just a couple of hours ago. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 00:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unverifiable neologism. Wikipedia is not for frindlizing or for stuff made up one day. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Death and Adjustment Hypotheses[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Procedural nomination. After I closed the previous discussion as "delete," the creator of the article asked me to email him the source text of the deleted article. He has recreated the article; please reassess it. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:03, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR, WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTABILITY. This is based entirely on two (both religious) source. Wikipedia is not the place to publish or to gain exposure from. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after neutral modification as it is not an Original Research, Neutral point of view depends largely on the editors approach and point of view that can be changed by adding new editor, and notability of the article is the subject itself. I do not see any religious resource, rather peer reviewed works are there on the issue. Plus similarity or dissimilarity to religion should not be any merit. If the hypotheses are not good, scientifically, the article can hold evidence for it too. Shoovrow (talk) 13:50, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with Headbomb. HJMitchell You rang? 14:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:07, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't tell rightly what this is, but it isn't encyclopedic. In part, it's a collection of quotes that themselves are grammatically challenged and are not organized in any kind of rhetorical framework. Is it original research? Is it book promotion? Is it some spiritual/religious text? I don't know. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails the WP:BULLSHIT test.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 08:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically a synopsis of Hossain's book, and there are no references that indicate the book or the "pair of multidimensional theory" it propounds are notable. The appropriate guidelines are WP:BK (for Quest for a New Death) and WP:PROF (for Hossain himself), and the article fails both as it stands. Incidentally, Quest for a New Death would be a more appropriate title for this article if it's kept. Tevildo (talk) 09:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It should not be deleted unless clearly understood as because the theory is now in scientific community via the very famous Tailor and Francis Journal on death - 'Death Studies'(find it at www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a907644823~db=all~jumptype=rss - ) and even McGraw-Hill educational material (find it at highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0078689686/374527/Additional_Lifespan_Development_Topics.pdf ) sites about the theory very specifically. Both of them are in the reference. Therefore, the theory is now with those who have not proposed it, but only reading it after peer reviewed publication. It is a more recent development but not unknown in the scientific world. I believe a rearrangement can help it become a useful encyclopedia article. I know, as the creator (bad creator, I believe) of the article I should not add much , but I believe recent but established (as scientific work) topic from the scientific world should not be left behind just for the failure of the creator of the article. Even time can help us proceedShoovrow (talk) 13:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The "Death Studies" reference is the sort of thing required to demonstrate the notability of the _book_, but not necessarily of the _theory_. This article might have a better chance if it were specifically about the book - but that will require a complete rewrite and page move. Tevildo (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge. I would recommend Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (comic book); if you find a better target, feel free to contact me on my talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Athair[edit]

Non-notable character, written largely in universe. No sources found. Seems too minor for a merge. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 21:14, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate character list, but trim it first. Edward321 (talk) 03:24, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. -- J^mundo 04:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it could be moved somewhere, it should, but, as it is, I concur with Hammer. HJMitchell You rang? 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, although the number of different continuities and character lists makes it nigh-impossible to discern to which article it should be merged. As it is, though, it's almost entirely plot summary; it's not even clear regarding which media, exactly, featured the character. Powers ^T 01:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merged to The Fixxers by User:Michig. Malinaccier (talk) 02:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Life[edit]

Unreleased album without any reference that establish notability Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've also nominated The Fixxers for deletion. Drmies (talk) 22:08, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to The Fixxers. The group is notable.--Michig (talk) 22:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with a merge--not that there is much to merge. Go for it, Michig--I think you can do that while the article is at AfD, no? Drmies (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I've gone ahead and merged.--Michig (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Seems OK where it is now it's been redirected. Good effort, Michig! HJMitchell You rang? 14:56, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Accept merge. Powers ^T 01:46, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Pidgin (software). Stifle (talk) 08:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Carrier (software)[edit]

Non-notable fork of IM software Pidgin (and an especially minor, barely changed one at that); only a few minor mentions in blog posts, and the article has been proposed for deletion and speedy deletion in the past, citing notability issues. GraYoshi2x►^talk 20:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to numerous blogs, it made it on slashdot, which is fairly significant as it is a high traffic site. The software is still kept up to date (the current version for download is 2.5.5, the same as Pidgin). In addition, previous attempts to merge the controversy into the Pidgin article have been systematically deleted in the past, so it's probably best to have its own (small) article where users that are interested, can read up on it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.13.83.10 (talk) 15:10, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's equivalent to getting a blog post onto the front page of Digg. What does that really amount to in terms of notability? I mean, sure there's a bit of praise and bits of interest being shown in the comments, but it all dies down after a day and the subject is quickly forgotten. GraYoshi2x►^talk 21:16, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a tricky one. It shouldn't stay where it is but it's good information and I feel it should go somewhere. Could it be merged somewhere better? HJMitchell You rang? 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:05, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Previous attempts to integrate it into the Pidgin page had all of the information removed since the Pidgin editors felt it was spamming the page -- so I moved it back to its own page. I think a separate page is probably better, this way the Pidgin page can just have a single line about it that references the larger page, if people are interested in finding out more about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.64.20.230 (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Simply because editors reject it on Pidgin doesn't necessarily mean that it must then deserve an article of its own, especially when it seems to fail notability guidelines and relies mostly on original research to support details. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GraYoshi2x►^talk 21:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge. Just from the Carrier features page, Carrier seems non-notable on its face. That feature list would barely warrant a blog item in a typical project. I wouldn't think a Slashdot article reporting a software change would establish a subject's notability. As comparison: there are all kinds of Mozilla Add-ons on the Mozilla website that are probably more extensive than this fork of Pidgin, and yet don't rise to WP:Notability. If it's not notable enough to exist in another article, it certainly isn't enough for its own. --Closeapple (talk) 06:45, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Pidgin (software). Just a few differences to Pidgin, so it really doesn't need an own article - while of course the information itself is notable! darkweasel94 (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Pidgin (software). I don't feel it's notable enough to be merged into Pidgin. Maybe a mention, but not all that content. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, One (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Pidgin (software) and add a sentence or two about the forking drama. That's what's notable, not so much the software result itself (similar in spirit to WP:BLP1E). The software doesn't really sound notable itself except as in relation to the parent-project. Excluding info related to the forking from the forked package, especially since the forking seems notable an clearly related to Pidgin. I think a slashdot main-page picked item is a source of notability for what it's actually about (again, the forking drama). DMacks (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 20:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Marzena Kamizela[edit]

Per WP:BLP1E: asserts notability as a model, but coverage is limited to a minor air rage incident w/ sources demonstrating no career-wise depth of coverage. Has no Swedish Wiki entry, which further indicates non-notability to me. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

She is mentioned in relationship with the on-going debate on the plane companies zero-tolerance regarding normal Nordic behavior abroad and lack of respect of the sideeffects on flying anxiety. Her case is also believed to be important in relationship with the blatant discrimination made on poor passengers compared with rich ones. As it is mentioned in her article the international standard for cases of air-rage was made with the Peter Buck case. The plane company did choose to abandon her on an rural and backward area where the culture calls for strict punishment of outsiders. The article should not be deleted. Maybe it should be integrated with other articles. 62.243.186.70 (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the article should stay. The reason that she has no page on the Swedish wikipedia is that she is half Polish. Lately non-swedish ethnic groups have caused a lot of disturbance and crime in the south of Sweden. They are in a process of rewriting their story, so she will have to be on the Polish wikipedia instead because then the right wing part of their parliament can claim that she was yet another foreigner going beseark. That does not make her less Swedish or known overthere. 87.48.134.50 (talk) 22:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC) — 87.48.134.50 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

I changed ISP April 1 2009 and used to operated under 81.19.225.98. 87.48.134.50 (talk) 07:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article should stay. She is properly on the Polish wikipedia rather than the Swedish because people from Eastern Europe have a bad reputation in the nordic countries after Poland has joined EU. Second she is a symbol of the injustice committed by airline companies. Next time they will properly drop gay passengers off in Iran, so they can be hanged. She was of no danger to the plane, so they should have given her to the US authorities or the authorities back in England. But the court system in UK has made a clear statement with the Peter Buck case, so that's maybe who they choose to drop her off in that hell-hole. I am Danish. I have seen Southpark. I know what this country stands for. 80.160.33.94 (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Comment "A symbol of the injustice committed by airline companies"? Kamizela got drunk on a plane, went into a rage, and spent a week in jail for it. The event has no apparent importance, and it's still just one event. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 13:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it states in the Swedish newpapers, she took the treatment for flying anxiety which by most house doctors is to drink alcohol and combine it with one sleeping pill. The Swedish expert in the local newspaper confirmed that this widespread approach can backfire in some cases. It seems that the Polish media is full with articles about her. Maybe you can google translate something there. I believe that there is more to her story than just this incident but I havn't time right now to investigate. If you choose to remove her, you can remove May Andersen also. I support that it was injustice. A similar incident happened with the Danish actor Ole Thestrup and it was also a miscarriage of justice. I have been flying to Spain in 70's a lot and it is normal for people to get drunk. The plane companies prefer it and continues to serve free alcohol for that purpose. Covergaard (talk) 14:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless she can be shown to be notable as a model. This is what BLP One Event and Do No Harm is properly about--a single incident having no connection with any underlying notability, for a not very well known person, that shows them in a poor light. If she is notable as a model, then the article must be rewritten around that, not this incident. DGG (talk) 03:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article centers on a routine incident involving someone who does not seem to notable for anything else. Air rage is quite common. Maybe it could be merged into an article on "unusual behavior on public transport", or something like that. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing more significant about this person than about many others, and definitely notability isn't proven. Nyttend (talk) 04:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The case brought so much outrage in the nordic countries where people are tired of the arrogant behavior of the plane companies. Maybe if it is deleted it should be merged into the air rage article. Her approach to fight flying axience was (alcohol+pills) by the book if you ask family doctors here and it just went wrong. But while people have been busy critizing the lack of modeling information in English about her, none have tried to locate info in the Polish language. Are articles on this wikipedia to be US centered or on world-wide-view Covergaard (talk) 19:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:ONEEVENT. If a different-language Wikipwdia has standards that allow her inclusion there, it's a separate matter. Drawn Some (talk) 20:43, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is no deadline; the article can be expanded. Also, his stats page shows that he won several notable tournaments. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Limeback[edit]

Stub about a Canadian speedcuber. The only reference is an official result from a speedcubing association. Delete. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google doesn't come up with anything either. Just not seeing the notability. - 2 ... says you, says me, suggestion box 16:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Speedcubers take this very seriously, so I think we should apply WP:ATHLETE. Unfortunately, I have no idea what the highest level of speedcubing would be. Can anyone deduce what the most important tournament would be? - Mgm|^(talk) 07:41, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The highest level of speedcubing is the world championships which are held every year. Although I do not beleive Eric Limeback has been to the world championships, he has a number of notable Canadian and North American records. I understand that the article is extremely short as of now, but it can certainly be expanded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bismuth321 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
National championships in a reasonably sized country or Championships of a continent are major enough to be considered notable for this determination too. They just concern a different geographical area. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I agree WP:ATHLETE applies here. From that "People who have competed at the highest amateur level of a sport". He is a world class competetor, as such notability is there. Turlo Lomon (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Villa Arson. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Michel Marot[edit]

Non-notable, A Google search shows no reliable sources. I would CSD this, but she's the architect of at least 1 building which has an article on Wikipedia. A v N 10:58, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Villa Arson. Article solely writes about this building, so the name of the architect is better mentioned there. If anyone finds any more notable buildings designed by this architect, I'll reconsider. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose or merge into Villa Arson. I will not adding infos to this article till the final decision. Greudin (talk)

The article is up here, because it seems there are not enough sources to build an article with. If you disagree, showing they exist and adding the info would help towards a different decision. - Mgm|^(talk) 07:38, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Villa Arson per above. Mainly because the article in question talk primarily about the building. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- I'^mperator 14:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Mgm|^(talk) 12:57, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aquastor[edit]

This seems little more than a definition - the examples are from someone's personal website. I've left both references although neither qualify as reliable sources. As Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and no notability is shown for the term, I think it should be deleted. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The fact that this term's survived on the order of five hundred years suggests that there are bound to be better sources available. Being unfamiliar with Paracelsus, I'm unable to judge how important the term is in his works, though. Zetawoof_(ζ) 10:53, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He only seems to use it once, see [115]. Dougweller (talk) 13:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a look at the source, Paracelsus defines it once and doesn't use it otherwise. Very well, I'm convinced then. Delete. Zetawoof_(ζ) 03:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very weak keep~~. Gene Wolfe has used these as characters (I've added the link, but I'm not sure how to cite it - would a direct reference to the book be enough?), although I'm not completely convinced that's enough to ensure the term's notability. Tevildo (talk) 12:26, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Unsurprisingly, it's also not an uncommon brand name for water tanks, swimming pools, etc. I've not found anything of that nature which would be an obvious pass of WP:CORP, and anything that did would probably merit its own article. Tevildo (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The term is only used twice (once in fiction the other by Paracelsus), and I could only find one other mention which is already cited in the article. I do not see this meeting the notability guidelines. Malinaccier (talk) 15:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Changing my opinion to reflect consensus. Tevildo (talk) 09:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Balamory episodes (Season 4)[edit]

Article is a bunch of headings with a lot of missing content (Wikipedia articles are specifically not placeholders) The lead is a bunch of self-references and the article lacks reliable, independent sources -- non exist. Delete (If it is kept for some reason it should be renamed "Series 4" rather than "Season 4" because the programme is British.) Mgm|^(talk) 10:07, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Deletion Policy does not include placeholders as a valid reason for deletion. Tagging as a stub is more appropriate. Citations have been added, which are more citations than are in the existing articles for series 1-3. Keep (I agree it should be renamed to "Series 4" rather than "Season 4", but "Season" is in keeping with the existing articles for the previous series.) Ectoraige (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —Sarilox (talk) 03:45, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment LocateTV and TV.com aren't reliable. The BBC isn't independent. None of them qualify as sources for an independent article. As for the title: Policy (like WP:ENGVAR and naming conventions) count more heavily than current status quo. In other words: we should use UK variant spelling on UK articles whenever we can. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as stub. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 23:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What counts as a reliable source for TV listings? Looking at samples from other lists of episodes, I can't find any with sources that, if cited, meet the usual standard for reliable sources - TV.com are the most cited. The List of ER Episodes, for example only cites the episode guides of the programme publishers. Perhaps the editors can figure this out on the Noticeboard. Ectoraige (talk) 10:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Wizardman 16:13, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Qi Dao[edit]

Notability issues, all material relating to this style seems to be by a single author and no third party sources seem to exist. Salix (talk): 06:54, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. —Salix (talk): 07:16, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I asked around about this and other listed "Tibetan martial arts" on the Wikiproject Tibet and Wikiproject Martial Arts discussion pages- no one there had ever heard of them, or seen them listed in any reputable source. I've not found anything online or in books about Tibetan topics that would verify this allegedly Tibetan martial art, or validate its notability. Tibet tends to be a magnet for drawing tenuous claims of exotic origin. --Clay Collier (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If other martial artists are not aware of any particular style, it doe not mean that the information about that style should not be in Wikipedia. On the contrary, this would allow those and other martial artists to find out about that style. In particular, Qi Dao may be of Tibetan origin but was mostly practiced in Russia. If it came to the West now, it should be given an opportunity to have its page in Wikipedia no less than Boabom or Kum Nye. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tantrapa (talk • contribs) 19:30, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be one of sources. All the material found seems to be by Lama Tantrapa with no third party sources to verify his claims. The article would stand a much better chance if such sources could be found. There is a specific guideline for martial arts articles: Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability which give indication of what is required. --Salix (talk): 20:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:12, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative Delete. Tantrapa, are there any sources for any of this other than yours truly? Bossk-Office (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There seem to be a great many reliable resources and thousands of other mentions on the internet. Are these references to "Qi Dao" referring to something else? I'm confused. Drawn Some (talk) 21:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes there are many things which have Qi and Dao in the name, including a magazine, a movie, a mediation practice. There are also quite a number of sites with material on this particular practice, however all the ones I can find are written by the same person. If you could find a source not written by Tantrapa that would great.--Salix (talk): 21:34, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absence of reliable third party sources Rirunmot (talk) 21:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirected by User:Jeandré du Toit Malinaccier (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Eurovision Dance Contest presenters[edit]

The Presenters are already listed here so there is no need for this article. Afkatk (talk) 11:15, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unsourced non notable list to article where it's at. -- Jeandré, 2009-04-19t12:09z

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Insufficient notability to meet guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:01, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. I noticed several WP:ATA arguments including: no reason to delete, not as notable as Susan Boyle, mere votes (some fallaciously appear to be saying something), etc. When it all comes down to it, no clear consensus emerges. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Talent[edit]

The subject of the article appeared as a contestant during the audition-phase of Britain's Got Talent's third season. His act has not recieved major attention from any source, and as a person he has so far in his life done nothing worth warranting an article on Wikipedia. Ixistant (talk) 02:52, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:04, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definatley a keep, there is no reason for it to be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.16.214.225 (talk) 20:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the act, maybe not, but he has notability from before the show. Past notability plus BGT attention = a keep from me. Sceptre ^(talk) 04:11, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Would suggest a merger to Britain's Got Talent (series 3) as his other notability is almost trivial but it seems from the discussions for the other contestants (Boyle, Jafargholi, and the current Steel one) that consensus is moving towards keep for all who audition and win, against the prior policy of only winners or finalists. I suspect we'll be back here on these in a few months and wonder what we did. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the previous ontestants you have mentioned is that they either had something resembling a notable career before the show (as in Jafargholi's case) or have made the news in other countries besides the UK (slightly in Steel's case, MASSIVLEY in Boyle's case). However DJ Talent has done nothing that warrants an article. Another major difference is that it's widely accepted that Steel, Boyle and Jafargholi will at least proceed beyond boot camp and possibly even win, whereas DJ Talent is widely considered to be very unlikely to win. Ixistant (talk) 05:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyle received outside news because of her audition. Jafargholi same thing. Steel, I can't even figure, but basically the same. None has any news that predates their audition (i.e. the audition was the reason for the background stories). This is actually the first one to have received some notability BEFORE his audition (although, I admit, trivial at best). Any claims that one shouldn't be here and the others should because of a WP:CRYSTAL-ball theory as who will win is irrelevant. We should not be making judgments as to who we think is likely to win and should stay, versus not. That opens Wikipedia to itself becoming the story. I wanted Boyle to be redirected (WP:BLP1E), and would argue the same for all of them (to be split out if they become notable, winning or not, the way things used to be done), but it's futile if consensus is going to switch to "let's keep this here because being a contestant on a game show is notable enough and then revisit later." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I already said on your talk page Ricky, the only reason DJ Talent's article was added is because he was on BGT. If it wasn't for his BGT appearance then he'd have no more notability than most people on the street, and even then that's probably the same amount of notability as most of the other contestants on the show who have made it past the auditions and not recieved Wiki articles about themselves. Ixistant (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you can't say the same about the others? I think all of them are too early for their own articles (what's wrong with a paragraph blurb at Britain's Got Talent (series 3)?), and really think adding them to Template:Britain's Got Talent is a bad idea. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. While I voted for Strong Keep in Boyle's and Jafargholi's case, this has neither been a remarkable performance, nor is he a remarkable singer, actor, or anything. It has just been shown because it is stupid. However: If there are people who think DJ Talent deserves a good article, and are willing to write one, let them do it. However, if the article is still trivial in 1 month, it should be proposed for deletion again. 85.197.28.59 (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that basically guessing as who is "remarkable" enough or not? I suspect that, unless something unusual happens, most of them will become trivial within a month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't this article nominated for AFD before? I distinctly remember seeing it listed. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It seems not - just seems like it due to references in the Susan Boyle AFD.

Keep The topic is notable as it has received attention from major sources on multiple occasions, as the sources in the article indicate. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Or at least merge it into the Britain's Got Talent article. Zestos (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Britain's Got Talent, possible remake of the article if he does actually win the contest, he hasn't received any significant press to warrant his own article. Afkatk (talk) 07:55, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Isn't as notable as some of the other acts such as susan boyle. --WizardPager212 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appeared on a television show once. Are we going to start making articles for everybody who ever won a round on Star Search? Everybody who ever won a case presided over by Judge Judy? At the very least, wait until the season is over and we know who actually won. — Gwalla | Talk 04:33, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has appeared on TV several times, as the article says. This opinion should be discounted as it misrepresents the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but the distinction between other contestants is that he was, under the classic definition, notable before the Britain's Got Talent appearance. As I said above, one on the two event on their own would convince me to !vote delete, but the two combined would convince me to !vote keep. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:20, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, could you really class his past actions as being noteworthy? If there was a story in the paper today about a man who was trying to sell his gold teeth, and who'd been on The Wright Stuff before would you class that person as being worthy of an article? What you also have to remember is that we're not voting on "Delete if he doesn't win". We can't know if he will win or not, so that cannot and must not be the sole basis of keeping this article. Remember, WP:CRYSTAL. In Susan Boyle's case she has recieved enough attention to be notable beyond the show, even if she doesn't win. And besides, we're not voting on whether Susan Boyle or anyone else should have an article. We are voting on whether DJ Talent should have an article. So remember, keep this article if you feel he is notable enough to recieve an article even if he doesn't get fuirther in the contest. However if you feel that DJ Talent is not notable for an article then either vote Delete or Merge. Ixistant (talk) 12:04, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A famous London DJ who has been in the news several times - this is enough by itself, but the added publicity of his BGT run surely renders him immune to voices of the Article Deletion Squad. If I were an admin I'd even consider WP:SNOWing this. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 08:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A snowball keep is only warranted when AfD participants are unanimously in favor of keeping. There is opposition here, so there is no snow. — Gwalla | Talk 16:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Woo appeared on television once, still not famous. JBsupreme (talk) 08:27, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The subject has appeared on TV several times, as the article says. This opinion should be discounted as it misrepresents the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But Boyle, Jafargholi, and Steel are? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boyle received significant coverage in British and international press and there's reasonable expectation that she shall continue to do so. This is not true of this contestant. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:52, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - BGT is the main thing for him, which involved his terrible rap, when he has had the success of other talent show terrors The Cheeky Girls then recreate the article. If the Afd had been started after he gets rejected from the competition then I think it would be more towards delete, the fact he is currently in it is the only reason it has support in my opinion. He has no coverage relating to his music & DJing so he must be pretty amateur. --Holkingers (talk) 10:40, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - neither a remarkable act, nor previously widely known in any way, nor an act with any chance of winning BGT, neither a talent with any future. Just a joke worth laughing about. There's absolutely no possible public interest in him. 85.197.17.17 (talk) 12:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ ^a ^b "Seven Ways to Greet a Neighbor". AskAsia. 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2009.

[AskAsia-1] "Seven Ways to Greet a Neighbor". AskAsia. 2009. Retrieved 3 May 2009.

[1]