Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 September 27

< 26 September	28 September >

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. NW (Talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Green Guys

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

Promo for non-notable film project still in production. Orange Mike | Talk 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks notability. WP:CRYSTAL too? Crafty (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - this article is not a "crystal ball", and is verifiable through the references stated - news articles, imdb link, and cast links. It is an upcoming film shot in phoenix. If articles can exist for "Twilight: Eclipse", a movie that has not even been shot yet, then this should definitely be kept. This is not a non-notable promotion, it is information and details about a film recently shot in Phoenix with accomplished actors, one of which won a Gemini award for best actor.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) — Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
- "It is an upcoming film" is an argument that this is a crystal ball situation, and therefore against keeping. As for "Twilight: Eclipse", (which is to be found at Eclipse (2010 film); don't waste time searching for Twilight: Eclipse), the situation is very different for several reasons, including the fact that Eclipse is the latest in a series which has already obtained considerable attention, and simply the fact that "Eclipse" has received an enormous amount of attention in the press and elsewhere, which Green Guys has yet to do. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - film already discussed in the news, in this case ABC News. Bearian (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- clarification - That's not the national ABC News, that's a brief report by a local station in the town where the film is being made ("local boy comes home to make his first flick" angle). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only coverage anyone has come up with is the article mentioned above from the local station affiliated with ABC. As Orangemike suggests, the tone of the article is very much that what is worth reporting is that a movie is being made locally by a local boy, rather than that the movie itself is newsworthy. Calling this one piece substantial coverage of the movie would be a stretch. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~(Keep)~~ When does press determine the legitimacy of a project's existence? Regardless if ABC coverage is national or local... the lead actors are quite noteworthy and have won awards, it is their new film,on the internet there is proof of it slowly gaining more and more attention, and of it being shot and existing. Wikipedia is littered with films that have yet to be released. And this clearly isn't just a student film and not just someone's side project. Simply because it has yet to be released or is not under a big studio does not negate its existence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.129.138 (talk) 09:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- - Struck through duplicate !vote by Raymondlaw editing anonymously: see Raymondlaw's next post for confirmation that it was him. ("That was my original point" referring to the above edit.) JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - the question is not whether the project exists, it is whether it is notable. As to your other arguments: notability is not inherited; even major actors participated in non-notable projects; and "it's gonna be big someday" is a tacit way of admitting it is not yet notable, but predicting that it will become notable soon - which fails the principle that "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and doesn't try to predict the future." --Orange Mike | Talk 17:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - so basically you are saying that if the article had more press it would become notable. That was my original point, and that is ridiculous. What is great about wikipedia is finding information about people and events that have happened. Here you find out about a new completed project by noteworthy actors that is in existence, very notable, and proven by imdb, ABC news, and other websites. Raymondlaw (talk) 18:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) 17:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whether you regard it as ridiculous or not, Raymondlaw, it is Wikipedia policy: we accept only articles about subjects which have already received substantial independent coverage. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You might want to read WP:Notability if you haven't already, Raymondlaw - and specifically the first sentence of the section "General Notability Guideline". That describes what the word notability means in its technical sense on Wikipedia, rather than any of the other meanings it may have in everyday life. Olaf Davis (talk) 13:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:CRYSTAL, as well as WP:NFF and WP:V... It's COI promotionalism, just like the rest of the creator's articles... - Adolphus79 (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response - There is proof of the movie existing and having completed filming as per coverage by ABC and other internet sites. As article creator, this is not a conflict of interest as I did not work on the film at all. Raymondlaw (talk) 18:12, 29 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymondlaw (talk • contribs) 17:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate !vote stricken... - Adolphus79 (talk) 17:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - Nobody has suggested that the film does not exist, and what is more Orangemike explicitly pointed out that existence was not the question the last time Raymondlaw made that mistake. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFF. Narthring (talk • contribs) 14:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - abc coverage, imdb write up, significant actors attached —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.83.140 (talk) 18:54, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- response to anonymous unsigned - Local ABC affiliate coverage (brief); anybody, including me, can have an IMDb listing - see Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey at IMDb; and you don't "catch" notability by working with notable people. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Question for anonymous unsigned I notice that your IP address is in a range which has been used by Raymondlaw, and also that you have no edits outside pages edited by Raymondlaw. Are you by any chance Raymondlaw? If so then you have now made three !votes. JamesBWatson (talk) 14:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the argument to delete the page has been made several times over and the creator's filibustering does not endear him to other users. Darrenhusted (talk) 18:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of games containing time travel . Clearly redundant to each other, and the other list is the better article. Black Kite 07:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of video games with time travel

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

a "Category:Time travel video games" already exists. Also, there's a "List of games containing time travel" with similar content Garethfc (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant to the categories. Sometimes, a list and category overlapping are fine, but this… nah. Too little non-list content. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete List of games containing time travel is 10x better then this list, and makes this list redundant. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 20:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the two lists. The "has a category" argument is wrong: Categories and lists are complementary, and there is no reason not to have both. Lists have the particular advantage of potentially providing some information about the material in which they appear, thus facilitating identification and browsing. Browsing is a key function of an encyclopedia. As a general rule, for topics like this, if there is a category, there should be a list. Not just "sometimes", but "almost always" unless it's sos obscure nobody wants to bother making the list. The question is whichis the better list--personally, I see advantages in each: for locating a game or sorting by yearm the present one is much quicker to read. Of course, it's also less informative. It's an interesting question how the merits can be combined--possibly by a 4th column, description? DGG ( talk ) 03:58, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the list identified by Blake. There may be some games on this list that need to be mentioned on the redirect target, but Blake is right, the other is ten times better. Although I suppose this can provide information that the category doesn't, it's not useful information-- manufacturer and date of release have nothing to do with why these titles are on the list. Mandsford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Although having two lists is redundant neither of them contain everything they should. The population is large enough to support a separate list (IE this one), in which case fields like description, year and format are highly desirable because they're what separates lists from categories, having release years/dates also enables the table to be used as a chronology or alphabetical list with a single click. I subscribe to Games TM, the latest issue arrived @ 4 hours ago by post and it contains a six page feature on time travel in video games. Not only does it provide a solid preamble for a standalone list but it also splits games into two camps - games with time travel as a plot theme and those with it as a gameplay mechanic - the same as used on the larger list. The pieces are all there for something much better. Someone another 14:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge in relevant information from List of games containing time travel. There is enough information to support this list by itself in addition to the games list. Put a wikilink in the games list to this one. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of games containing time travel [Belinrahs | 'sup? | what'd I do?] 18:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aids in navigation, plenty of blue links listed there. There are enough video games to fill this list on its own. If you combine it with other types of games, it'd get too crowded. So I say Keep, not merge. Dream Focus 04:01, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list is redundant. Richard (talk) 04:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:45, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DFDdeveloper

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

DELETE. Completely and utterly NN software product, egads. JBsupreme (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find reliable third-party coverage establishing notability. Narthring (talk • contribs) 04:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete per the BLP1E argument. Shame on the person who alleged homophobia. -- Y not? 01:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Helen Goddard

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

Helen Goddard is a British music teacher who had an affair with a female pupil aged 15, and was recently convicted and sentenced to 15 months in jail. This is not really a biography of her, but rather a coatrack to report her conviction.

A small piece has already been included about her conviction in the article about her school, City of London School for Girls.

Helen Goddard is only known for this one event, and we have a policy, WP:BLP1E, for this kind of case, which generally excludes biographies about such people. We have a guideline on those who commit criminal acts, i.e. Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators, and I believe that this article fails the criteria set out there.

A teacher having sex with an underage pupil is not rare,[1][2][3] so I would argue against reworking the article into Conviction of Helen Goddard or similar. The burst of news reports about this case has been fuelled by it being a lesbian affair, and Helen Goddard being blonde and photogenic, rather than any serious lasting significance of the case. Fences&Windows 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Addition to the nomination: There are at least 1800 news stories about female teachers having sex with pupils in Google News since 1970,[4] and none of the following recent cases now have Wikipedia articles, despite also having sex with an underage pupil: Alison Smith, Madeleine Martin, Bridget Mary Nolan, Karen Louise Ellis, Sarah Jayne Vercoe, Heidi Choat, Cindy Leanne Howell, Jo Gorman, or Rachel Holt. Out of the hundreds or thousands of similar cases, the only articles I can find about women only known for statutory rape are Debra Lafave, Mary Kay Letourneau, Beth Modica Scandal, Janet Klatt, and Pamela Rogers Turner. Some of those have been deleted before or are good deletion candidates. Fences&Windows 23:59, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete classic BLP1E. This isn't a biography, this is regurgitated tabloid fodder trying to look respectable. Mr. Hed 01:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Are you seriously suggesting The Guardian [5] , The Times [6] and The BBC [7] are tabloid sources and are ‘unrespectable’, quite an ill thought out and egregious comment. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 11:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether or not this is the case with the reporting of this conviction, broadsheets are quite capable of indulging in 'Tabloid/Yellow journalism'. Fences&Windows 23:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is not whether the content is titillating as Wikipedia is not censored. The only issue which might concern us about tabloid stories is whether they are completely fabricated stuff of the National Enquirer sort - Elvis sighted on Mars, &c. This is not the case here. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BLP1E, and the above comments. She's already mentioned in the appropriate article.Fuzbaby (talk) 02:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the coverage of her career in reliable sources is incidental to the crime she committed, so it's another clear WP:NOTNEWS. It's possible she may become notable in the future if this story keeps resurfacing, but that's not the case now. (If in the event that she does become notable, the thing she's notable for must go in the lead paragraph - and let's face it, it ain't that she's a classical musician.) Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 07:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename as Conviction of Helen Goddard. Sufficiently notable because of the amount of International coverage and debate her conviction has generated. Goddard is now unlikley to work as a musician again so no point in a Biography.Incidently The Times and The BBC are the best WP:RS there is, for current affairs and hardly "regurgitated tabloid fodder"!?? Like it or not Goddard is a household name in the UK for her 'crimes'. The case has been reported in over 175 international news sources and appears in media around the globe [8], and Goddard is a Cause célèbre in the international Lesbian community. Article is well written, not sensationalist, it is too much for a merged subsection on City of London School for Girls. Estragons (talk) 08:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is certainly true that there has been a lot of media attention to this event, but it seems to me that this is a "burst" as defined in WP:BLP1E. The event itself is (regrettably) not unusual or "significant", Ms. Goddard appears to have no sources of notability other than in connection with this crime, and she doesn't appear to meet any of the criteria set out in Wikipedia:Notability (criminal acts)#Perpetrators. In considering the balance between WP:BLP1E and the general notability guideline, I was guided by this quotation: "The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable secondary sources." There are certainly multiple reliable secondary sources but I find myself unable to believe that this coverage is going to be "persistent". If it does persist, I don't think there's any bar to considering this subject in a second AfD; say, three or six months down the road. Accounting4Taste:talk 19:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP is not a repository for tabloid sleaze. Xxanthippe (talk) 07:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC),[reply]

Nor is it a place for your arbitrary moral judgments and prejudices. Laestrygonian3 (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't make assumptions about other editors' motivations. Calling the case 'tabloid sleaze' is not an arbitrary moral judgment, and while not the most well-described opinion, Xxanthippe's comment could be taken to refer to WP:NOTNEWS rather than a personal prejudice. Fences&Windows 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. More than a whiff of homophobia and censorship about in this debate (Tabloid sleeze...really?). News coverage in very serious sources is enough to justify inclusion be it a bio or reworked article.Archivey (talk) 12:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia? From whom? Please take care not to use too broad a brush when you refer to other Wikipedia editors. Fences&Windows 23:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I asked Archivey to strike their comment, but they archived my request without comment. I don't think the suggestion that homophobia is involved in arguing to delete is constructive. I can see no sign of homophobia in any of the deletion comments, and I would consider it a personal attack if you meant to include my nomination as being homophobic. Again, could you please strike out that comment? Fences&Windows 20:30, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. as Helen Goddard (child molester) please. Thank you HG [9]

There is currently only one Helen Goddard on Wikipedia so no need for dab, and even if there was then the article title would be Helen Goddard (Teacher) . Laestrygonian3 (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as justified by the sources; ~~and expand the relevant encyclopedic part, which seems to be more the protests than the conviction~~ DGG ( talk ) 17:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC) I see F&W has been doing some good work cleaning up other parts of the article. I modified my comment. DGG ( talk ) 23:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I wondered about this debate, campaign and protests, so I dug further into the sources. They failed to back up what was claimed. Do a couple of blogs, right-wing usual suspect Melanie Phillips, and Spiked Online [10] pushing it's libertarian agenda amount to a debate on the age of consent?[11] Hardly. One of the claims about outrage at the sentencing was sourced to a ranty blog, the claim about male-female disparity in sentencing appeared in none of the sources, and the claims that Goddard has been lauded by gay rights activists and is a lesbian "cause celebre" are unverifiable, and the "campaign" to free her is a Facebook group with 100 members. Fences&Windows 21:22, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This belongs on the article talkpage not cluttering up the add debate. You seem obsessed with getting this article deleted, what is it you don't like? is it Lesbians? Stop your ranting comments please you are annoying us and putting people off commenting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.139.133 (talk) 21:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have a far bigger obsession with Wikipedia's policy on no personal attacks. Stop it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's twice now I've been groundlessly accused of homophobia. Charming. My opinion on why this case has received coverage is that the press find a relationship between a female teacher and student to be titillating, and they also tend to give coverage to cases involving attractive teachers. The case has no lasting significance, it's just the subject of a burst of yellow journalism. My interest is in correctly applying policy on biographies of living people, and I've also got an interest in people using reasoned argument at AfD. If you can't engage in reasoned debate, kindly leave Wikipedia well alone. Fences&Windows 23:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot understand why wanting to delete this article should be considered homophobic. It is more likely that homophobes will want to keep the article on WP in order to expose the subject and her victim to on-going public obloquy that they may well feel the pair deserve - a Web 2.0 version of the pillory. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Rubbish, visit the online media, she is not being pilloried, quite the opposite. It is because Helen Goddard has support in the media and with the public that this case stands out from others. Incidently any reference to that support appears to have been removed from the article. People can draw their own conclusions as to why some people are so determined at censorship about the background to her conviction and that she is still in a relationship with her "victim". 86.145.90.106 (talk) 08:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply to my comment. I am not sure what media you are referring to. The mainstream British media cited in the article do not appear to lend support to your contention. If you are referring to blogs, they are not considered reliable sources for WP. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

You are still insinuating other users are being homophobic. Next time I will report this to Wikiquette alerts. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What a pointless comment to make. I cant see any personal attacks so you go ahead and report what ever imagined slight you feel. And report the editor calling Goddard "a Tabloid Sleeze" which is a deliberate insult, while you are at it. Threatening people to get your own way is also a breech of ettiquette is it not. Not that I'm in the slightest bit intimidated. 92.40.238.159 (talk) 17:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I complain that my edit has been misrepresented by the anon. I certainly did not refer to the subject as "Tabloid Sleaze" (note spelling) and would not say such a thing about any person whatever their actions. I referred to the content of the article as Tabloid Sleaze, which it is. In determining the AfD, though, this is all beside the point. As many people have pointed out the article fails on WP:BLP1E and perpetrator. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

So be it. I have reported the two offending posts to WP:WQA. If you won't listen to anyone taking part in this debate about civility, maybe you can resolve it with someone impartial. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 18:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first IP user is a sockpuppet of User:PODs Watch. If anyone has reliable sources for a campaign of support of Goddard, please include them in the article. Removing unverifiable material is not censorship. Fences&Windows 19:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a pretty obvious WP:BLP1E. Is anyone actually claiming she is notable for anything else? I don't see it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. ArcAngel (talk) 18:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This AFD is being discussed in today's Daily Telegraph[12] 92.40.95.114 (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was mentioned in a list of 20 AFDs, not discussed.--Otterathome (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete despite being hot, this is an obvious WP:BLP1E case. If her crime significantly influences a law (like John Couey), or she is in the news again for a completely different reason, then it can be restored.--Otterathome (talk) 19:51, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This person is notable for being a musical prodigy and performing at the Olympics, as well as this latest matter. We have plenty of sources which cover the topic and they cover the subject as the primary content. BLP1E is therefore not applicable as that policy is for minor figures caught up in a larger event for which there is a separate article. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, she's not notable as a musician by our standards. We wouldn't have an article about her as a musician; she had received no press coverage prior to this case being reported in July. The only mention I can find of her on the web aside from this case is on her band's website from 2000:[13] Fences&Windows 23:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Estragons. An example of such is Caylee Anthony. So keep. --A3RO (mailbox) 06:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Textbook ONEEVENT. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep possibly rename to event. This drew considerable press in US & Canada, transcends a local news story - Vartanza (talk) 19:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serious case of WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Not everyone who's covered by the newspapers deserves a Wikipedia article; this woman was the subject of brief coverage, but has not yet achieved long-term notability. Robofish (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was A9 Non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dreaming Little Things

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

I can't find significant coverage for this album. The only review cited is on a student newspaper, and I can find no additional articles on this album at all. The band's article was recently deleted at AfD due to notability concerns (see here). Speedy was declined citing the said review. Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. Tim Song (talk) 23:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nominated. Crafty (talk) 23:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Freiman

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

As a minor league player, does not seem to meet WP:ATHLETE NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 22:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per nom - little press coverage and low draft status seems to indicate a run-of-the-mill minor league player, so non-notable. Majorclanger (talk) 10:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. —Majorclanger (talk) 15:38, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. An eighth-round draft pick from Duke with one year in short-season Class A ball. I'd also be ok with merging it to San Diego Padres minor league players, though there really isn't much there to be merged. BRMo (talk) 22:35, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quiet Internet Pager

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

Non-notable. After contested prod, three sources were added:

Softpedia - user generated site that has accepted uploaded press releases as reviews
ICQhelp - two sentences about QIP that says exist. This is the type of trivial mention that WP:N hates.
Computer Forensics - the trivialest of trivial mentions. QIP appears in a list with several other clients, in an article that mentions dozens of clients.

This software is not notable, per WP:N. Period. Miami33139 (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A simple Google search pulls up www.qip.ru with their forums located at http://forum.qip.ru/

They have 3rd-party add-on capabilities, skinning, PDA versions, Smartphones, Windows platform and, a skin designing program. I have to say that this is pretty deep seated and a well set up program (after testing it) and is notable. Perhaps not notable to the American public but is notable to the Russian public (after all, it is hosted on a Russian site.) I say keep after some edits pointing to the information for the site. However I think it should be moved and translated to the Russian side of Wikipedia --Apb91781 (talk) 06:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC) — Apb91781 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep Seems like its quite notable to Russian speaking people. As for your comment, "This is the type of trivial mention that WP:N hates.", I'd like to point out that the guideline can't actually hate anything, only the people who created it can, and they of course hate anything that requires them to think for themselves, preferring to destroy every single article that doesn't have a news source they have heard of giving coverage to something. Of course, there are many notable things out there which aren't covered at all, such as some bestselling novels. So you have to think for yourself, ignore the suggested guidelines, they just suggestions not policy, and use common sense. How many millions of people use this software? That makes it notable. Dream Focus 21:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Why would Russian speakers be reading about a Russian program on an English wikipedia server? --CCFreak2K (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If its notable in any country, its notable everywhere. Dream Focus 14:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The wikipedias are split into language versions, not by territory --85.132.159.239 (talk) 19:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. ONCE AGAIN PEOPLE, internet forums are not indicators of notability (in the encyclopedic sense) nor are they reliable as a source for any encyclopedia, including this one. (!!!) Please please please get this through your heads. :( JBsupreme (talk) 05:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Again, non notable software with zero significant coverage. Triplestop x3 22:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Although I QIP strongly dislike becuase its nonstandard encoding see PidginIM bug-ticket. But back to the point QIP is one of the main replacements of the original ICQ client along with Miranda. In my opinion the client may not be recognised in US beacuse of much lower popularity of the ICQ protocol than in Eastern Europe. I know this is not a reliable source but for those that vote for delete bucause they have not heard of it,I have gone trough my buddy list and loggs and I can tell you that about 80 people have messaged me from QIP for more than one session from an ICQ contact list of about 150 people. Don't delete pages just because you assume, get the information to make wikipedia better your own way. Google or ask people. It doesnt have to be notable to everyone, just to a portion of people that are insterested in the topic.--85.132.159.239 (talk) 19:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 13:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. If she was non-notable before, she's not suddenly notable because of her death. However, although there was little wrong with the first AfD - the article at that point contained very little claim to notability - the improved article does, even without the additional coverage related to her death. Black Kite 07:22, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Felicia Tang

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

Previously deleted without objection for failure to meet the GNG and relevant specific notability guidelines. After the article was deleted, the subject was killed in a domestic violence incident. Being a victim of domestic violence does not confer notability, and no other new information has been added to indicate the subject might be otherwise notable. WP:NOTNEWS clearly controls. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep and close. She was notable enough to be included in the Deaths in 2009 section. The article was sourced this time; this is obviously a bad faith nomination.SPNic (talk) 02:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep Multiple, independent sources at the article. I'll try to format it better later. The subject might have been a borderline case before-- and therefore should have been Kept. Appears to have been dominated by the Deletion-brigade. But, much to their chagrin, easily passes "notability" now. Re-nomination by the same nominator looks very much like the petulant act of a sore loser. Dekkappai (talk) 02:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the combination of her being a porn star, a now famous victim and passing WP:NOTABILITY. Multiple very reliable sources refer to her as a "star." Re-nominating an article for deletion within the same month of a previous AfD and right after the person's notability has increased seems disruptive.--Oakshade (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The only disruption here is from SPNic, who recreated the article after it was deleted without objection. He/she should have taken the dispute to deletion review, but instead chose to recreate the article without any sourcing except for the domestic violence killing, which is by wide consensus nowhere near enough to establish notability, but with uncivil and dishonest personal attacks. And she wasn't a porn "star" by any reasonable use of the term; the standard reference sites have her in no more than a handful of softcore films. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk)

Creating an article about a person after said person becomes the significant subject of reliable sources is not disruptive in any manner. The person had this new coverage after the last AfD, not before. CBS News / Associated Press, The Straits Times, KTLA and WRC-TV all refer to her as a "porn star" [14][15][16][17]. We go by reliable sources. Not an editor's opinion of them.--Oakshade (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, perhaps you can provide an example of a discussion here where news reports identifying someone in passing as a "porn star" was considered reliable-source evidence of notability. As you may or may not be aware, the term has been deprecated on Wikipedia (replaced by pornographic actor) because its common use inaccurately implies notability or significance. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are editors here, not authorities. Whatever a discussion of self-important jackasses here says is totally irrelevant when reliable sources in the real world say something else. This subject has reliable, international sourcing. The article stays. Period. Dekkappai (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I DID take the article to deletion review first, and it's still at the bottom of this page! Neither the nominator nor anybody else paid attention, except for Dekkaappai, who suggested I redo the article myself.SPNic (talk) 12:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I saw the article-creator's request to recreate the article, and since it got no response-- and still has not got a response-- I recommended he not waste time with the bureaucracy. In the original spirit of Wikipedia, I suggested he just write the article and post it. I have done this myself with other articles in the past, in similar situations-- a "consensus" of two deletion-minded editors have deleted a notable subject, and I've then taken the time they did not to find sourcing and write a decent article. If we now have to wait for permission from rule-makers to start articles on subjects with multiple, reliable sources, then this is a victory for Wikipedia as Bureaucracy, and the death of Wikipedia as "The free encyclopedia anyone can edit". Dekkappai (talk) 13:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Woo -- woooooo! <throws confetti mentally, celebrating this small symbolic victory> ↜Just M E here , now 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Two different inadequate reasons for notability do not make one good reason. The murder was the sort of murder we consider trivial; the earlier career, ditto, accepting the earlier verdict on that. That newspeople pay attention to this when they wouldn't otherwise is the basis of tabloid journalism, and the reason for NOT TABLOID. Re-creating it, though, was not the least disruptive-- the older article was significantly supplemented with new material, and therefore an new AfD is appropriate. Only if it were substantially the same article would it have been problematic. If it had been taken to Deletion Review, the inevitable decision would have been: recreate, and another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with DGG. Both of the reasons given for notability cannot sustain the article on their own and cannot do so in combination. Her career as a porn star seems to be short and unremarkable and doesn't meet any of the suggested guidelines at WP:PEOPLE. As for her death, it is a fleeting news item that will be lost and forgotten by the passage of time. Shadow007 (talk) 05:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: KTLA News, Pasadena Star-News, CBS News, Los Angeles Times (2 articles), Kompas (the most widely read newspaper in Indonesia), Italian news, Dutch news, Chinese news, more Chinese news, ... But what do they know? It's not "notable" if we Wikipedia ~~editors~~authorities say so. Dekkappai (talk) 05:30, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator is right, being the victim of domestic violence does not confer notability. But being the subject of non-trivial third-party coverage does. Extensive coverage in reliable sources is what Wikipedia:Notability is all about. faithless (^speak) 08:26, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep As per Faith. Extensive coverage in news media. Including Australian sites (SMH is Sydney's highest circulated newspaper) : http://www.smh.com.au/world/australian-porn-star-tortured-and-killed-20090929-gabz.html

Stextc (talk) 11:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 14:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E. Epbr123 (talk) 15:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Being in multiple films, magazines and porn sites is multiple events. The "L" in "BLP" stands for "living."--Oakshade (talk) 15:24, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're multiple non-notable events. The rationale behind WP:BLP1E also applies to deceased people. Epbr123 (talk) 15:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The rationale behind WP:BLP1E is the protection of privacy for "low profile" (quote from WP:BLP1E, no myself) living individuals who through no fault of their own ended up briefly being high profile. Someone who willingly performs in multiple internationally released films is in no manner "low profile." --Oakshade (talk) 16:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E does override WP:GNG. This woman is the subject of multiple, notable, reliable coverage in international news sources. Easily passes "notability." Dekkappai (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, WP:BLP1E overrides WP:GNG. BLP1E is policy, while GNG is a guideline. There wouldn't be any point having BLP1E if it didn't override GNG. Epbr123 (talk) 17:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for pointing that out. There's the crux of the problem then. We have Wikipedia editors overriding real-world authorities. Where in the real world does it say one cannot be "notable" for one event? Nowhere. GNG gives authority to real-world authorities. BLP1E to amateur article-writers, or deleters. Dekkappai (talk) 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for pointing out that Wikipedia's definition of "Living" also includes "Dead". Oddly enough, I'm not surprised at all. Dekkappai (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. If you actually read WP:BLP1E, and understand the concept behind it, you should see that what it says also applies to deceased people. If you have a problem with the word living being in the header, see WP:BIO1E instead. Epbr123 (talk) 07:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Epbr123! Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 16:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Epbr123 (talk) 17:04, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Switched to keep per Morbidthoughts. Passes PORNBIO criteria 5. Epbr123 (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Despite this seeming to be a WP:BIO1E article, it seems like a decent biography was derived from the substantial coverage of that 1 event. Also, I will give the article the benefit of the doubt in passing criteria 5 of PORNBIO as reliable sources have verified that she's been in multiple mainstream productions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure it can be said that she passes criteria 5 of PORNBIO. She has featured in multiple mainstream media publications regarding one event only. I consider that criteria 5 refers to featuring in mainstream media in respect of multiple events. Shadow007 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Morbidthoughts is referring to her appearances in the films Rush Hour 2, Cradle 2 the Grave, and The Fast and the Furious. There's a belief that a porn star is notable if they've managed to make a crossover in mainstream productions. Epbr123 (talk) 07:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is debatable as to whether having an uncredited role (not listed on IMDb, for example) in mainstream films qualifies as "featuring" in mainstream media. Shadow007 (talk) 08:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uncredited roles do actually count towards passing criteria 5. Morbidthoughts and I were two of the main contributers to the PORNBIO criteria. Epbr123 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The fact that she is a porn star has nothing to do with anything. The problem is that this is essentially a news story and we have no idea yet wether or not it is going to have any lasting notability outside of the current news cycle (it happened less than a month ago). Wikipedia is not a news service, which is why WP:Notability says :"it takes more than just a short burst of news reports about a single event or topic to constitute sufficient evidence of notability". Now I could see this event becoming notable in the future because it is a great candidate for a made for TV movie or a true crime book, but trying to predict future notability is prohibited. So right now with the sources you have this would be fine for Wikinews but not Wikipedia.Rusty Cashman (talk) 07:49, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wide coverage in Southern California print, media and online sources as well as being noted internationally with many describing her as a "porn star". If "reliable" sources use the term, they think she is notable (a star is a star...) - reliable doesn't have to equal accurate, or something with which we agree - we have to accept what they say or it's OR and lots of other bad acronyms. And BTW Hullabaloo, "porn star" wasn't deprecated to favor the ungrammatical "pornographic actor" which I objected to but the much more proper "pornographic film actor".Cherryblossom1982 (talk) 01:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: A decent biography was derived from the coverage - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A 'decent biography' does not confer notability. It is the content of the biography that is the issue. Shadow007 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I don't think that is correct. The problem is the nature of sources of that content. All of it is from fairly routine news reports filed in the last month or so. That makes this article basically a news story, and as such it is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In addition to multiple US reliable sources, and the Australian, Indonesian, Italian, Dutch, and Chinese reliable sources noted above, let's include Argentina. So that makes, what? Five continents? But I suppose Wikipolicy says it's just a run-of-the-mill local news story until it hits Antarctica too? Dekkappai (talk) 17:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further: The reason she is covered in world-wide sources, of course-- as MorbidThoughts pointed out above, and as mentioned in the article-- is that the subject is notable. She appeared in several high-profile venues, such as Playboy TV, her internet site was popular, she made multiple mainstream appearances. As such, she passes WP's "notability" criteria under WP:PORNBIO #5. Dekkappai (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per faithless. Tabercil (talk) 01:10, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per what WP:FANCRUFT says about notable pop culture subjects covered in reliable sources. ↜Just M E here , now 02:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per so many above. Even prior to her death she was well known enough to be considered notable, despite the naysayers of the Deletionist school. -- SilverWings (talk) 07:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. See that 'L' in BLP1E? That tells me that it doesn't apply to Ms. Tang. Stifle (talk) 10:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Could anyone else wishing to comment please read WP:NOTNEWS first? Only one keep voter so far has tried to counter the main argument for deletion. Epbr123 (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Morbid's pointing out the multiple mainstream appearances should settles the BLP1E concern, as well as NOTNEWS, I would think. As far as NOTNEWS in particular, reading through it just now, I don't see how it applies here at all. "Routine news coverage of such things as announcements, sports, and tabloid journalism are not sufficient basis for an article." Nope. "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..." The coverage does go beyond the context of a single event, or our own article would not be able to cover the subject's entire life and career, as it does. "While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information..." The subject's death is only one small paragraph, followed by a memorial statement by the family. Seems perfectly "appropriate" within the context of an article on the subject's life as a whole, and un-emphasized to me... Dekkappai (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The coverage does not go beyond the context of a single event. All the coverage is primarily about her murder. If she was notable, she would have received coverage before this single event. A decent biography may have been compiled from the news coverage, but the same could be done for any murder victim or anyone else that comes under BLP1E/BIO1E/NOTNEWS. Epbr123 (talk) 17:46, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Of course the coverage goes beyond the single event. The articles are about her death, but they go into detail about her notable career in softcore venues, mainstream appearances, Internet site, etc. If she were simply a victim of domestic violence, as claimed in the nomination, this evidence of notability would not have been brought into each article on her death. Also, her death would not have made reliable news sources in five continents, that we know of. Dekkappai (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It should be clear the subject fails WP:PORNBIO; the only criterion from that guideline she might meet is #5, being "featured multiple times in mainstream media," but there's no verifiable sourcing for the claim that she appeared in mainstream films predating her death -- instead, the most that can be said is that she may have appeared as an uncredited extra in several mainstream films. Those are not the sort of appearances that #5 addresses; that's why the article was deleted without objection a few weeks before her death. The same is true for the claims that she appeared in Playboy videos -- there's no reliable evidence presented that she had roles as anything but an extra, if she had any roles at all. As for BLP1E/BIO1E/NOTNEWS issues, when we compare similar events generating significantly more news coverage -- the Jasmine Fiore and Annie Le killings -- the extensive coverage hasn't been deemed sufficient to make the victims individually notable. The editing and verification of the article text is clearly below Wikipedia standards -- for example, the subject's name has now been rendered "Felicia Tang Lee," in spite of the fact that there's zero reliable evidence that this was either her legal name or a name form the subject ever used -- instead, it's based on an obvious misreading of its supposed "reference." The claim that the subject appeared on the "Ali G" show is entirely unsupported by evidence, reliably sourced or otherwise; the only basis for including it in the article seems to be an editor's claim that "think I read it somewhere, can't find it right now" -- a perfect example of things that shouldn't be included in any Wikpedia article, especially a biography. WP:RS cautions editors to take care not to include material, even from otherwise reliable news organizations, which may be sourced, directly or indirectly, from Wikipedia (including mirror sites); what has happened with the article subject here is that news organizations, faced with a breaking story regarding an obscure figure, have used the best sources available to them, primarily mirrors of the Wikipedia article -- and therefore those news reports can't be reliable sources for the Wikipedia article they're based on. It's also worth noting that the more responsible news organizations have been careful to indicate that some of the information in their articles has been impossible to verify -- for example, one of the CBS articles points out that the subject's supposed mainstream credits are presented only "according to her Web site"; one of the LA Times articles used a reference similarly notes that the source for its report of mainstream credit is "a resume posted on her website." Wikipedia articles should be based on information verified by reliable sources, not information which reliable sources report they have not been able to verify. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article was previously deleted because a couple of Deletion regulars voted delete, and no one bothered to counter the pro-Deletion bias set up in the AfD system. I did not add the Ali G line. Another editor did, and since I recall reading it also myself, and because I AGFed, and because it is far from a controversial statement, I merely tagged that for a "fact". The Deletion nominator, in contrast, has repeatedly tagged the entire article for Ref-improve despite its meticulous sourcing to multiple reliable sources. The nominator, without evidence, repeatedly claims these reliable sources were based on Wikipedia's article, yet continued edit-warring the "ref-improve" tag in even after it was shown that the subject's official biography supported these sources as early as 2002, as the nominator points out, this is stated in the sources themselves-- those he simultaneously accuses of cribbing from Wikipedia-- and all this is easily verifiable by readers due to the sourcing in the article. Dekkappai (talk) 17:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There have been a couple of interesting questions raised by this discussion. They are can news coverage that would not itself establish notability (because of WP:NOTNEWS) be used to estabish notability by meeting the "featured multiple times in notable mainstream media" of WP:PORNBIO? Similarly can material such as promotional material and appearances in adult entertainment media that would not normally establish notability per WP:PORNSTAR establish the notability of a figure who has appeared in a burst of news stories about a single event (in this case a murder) that would not normally pass NOTNEWS? I stand by my earlier delete vote, because I don't think you should be allowed to work the notability requirements against one another in this way. I suspect in a little while the point will becomce mute, because as I said earlier I am sure in few months their will be a true crimes book or made for TV movie that will establish notability, but that shouldn't be allowed to affect this debate. Rusty Cashman (talk) 18:56, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable through her television work. I'm not sure how many of her films were notable, if any. She did appear briefly in several major films though. Her overall career seems enough to establish notability. Her horrible death got plenty of news coverage, but even without that, I'd still say she was notable because of her career. Dream Focus 03:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (although a name change, such as "Claims to be the..." might be appropriate Black Kite 07:19, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest village in England

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

In my opinion, this topic isn't encyclopedic. It's trivial. The article itself is horrible and lacks needed references, and is effectively impossible to reference due to varying definitions of 'village', 'town' and 'largest'. The article can't realistically be repaired, and it's trivial, so it should be deleted. Computerjoe 's talk 21:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Im strongly leaning toward delete, but i want to point out: in List of villages in Northern Ireland, theres an external link defining village for N. ire., [18]. this would help. if village is defined only as a population range, and not some other criteria, then the claim would be automatically spurious (a tie for the score or so that have the exact maximum population at any given time), and just a method of self promotion, which is of course not a valid reason for creating encyclopedia articles here. (are you ready for a list of "best cups of coffee in the world"? or "largest small bookshop"?) Most of the refs in this article simply mention the claim. i didnt see any official village websites that make the claim, which would help. for all the people involved in this article, why not find a UK govt definition of village, and make a list of them, or take the names from the various subcategories in "Category:Villages in England", and rank them by size. i know thats a lot of work, but it would be much more encyclopedic than this marginal article. you could have in that list a comment column which says whether a particular village has made this claim, either currently or historically.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The page consistently receives between 40 and 60 visits a day, so there is an interest in the subject; the problem is that the article doesn't provide any definitive answers, just a list of contenders. I understand the point that different villages have a claim to the title, depending on how 'largest' is defined, but what's needed is some kind of list stating (with citations) which village IS the largest in any given context. Obscurasky (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. The opening sentence says it is "meaningless." Northwestgnome (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a popular and well-used page that apparently contains information that people are interested in. The page is been regularly edited for six years. These in themselves do not make it encyclopaedic, but the discussion of the main topic and the detailed information in it probably does. If nothing else the page demonstrates the difficulty in verifying such a claim, and the list of unsourced items merely emphasises the point, admittedly in a slightly ironic way. As was suggested in previous afd discussion it might be more accurate to describe the page differently; but I would not advocate this. The current title reflects something that people are searching for, albeit when they arrive at the article they would be able to discover why the object of their search is unlikely ever to be found. Naturenet | Talk 07:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the article saying "This title is essentially a meaningless one". DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rework As there are lots of villages that claim to be the largest in England, and this article has been consistently viewed and edited for several years, I think it is important that this title is not a redlink as the topic clearly has notability. We should have some coverage, somewhere, about it. This will probably be best as an article that lists verifiable claims (and the grounds for the claim) to be the largest village in England along with an explanation of why it is difficult or impossible to verify the claims and therefore difficult/impossible to say which village actually is the largest in England. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - here in the UK there have been lots of discussions about which is the largest village in the UK. Believe it or not, as it sounds like the most ridiculous argument and one that is meaningless as it cannot be exactly proven. However, it's something that people talk about and compete over. The reason why the article says it's "essentially a meaningless one" doesn't mean that it's therefore irrelevant. The concept of which is the largest village is in popular discussion and media for centuries. It's just a quirk of the British culture, and therefore should stay. Although to a non-Brit (or indeed to someone who doesn't live in the UK) it sounds as though this is a made-up term, in fact it's something that is discussed a lot. Different villages argue that they are the larger village. It's very silly and very British. And hence the page has been edited and referred to a lot over the years. Tris2000 (talk) 10:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This introduces a fair point - others have referred above the the self-professed meaninglessness of the claim and equated this to the meaninglessness of the article. However it is wrong to equate the status of 'largest village' with this article in this context. The page itself is not meaningless but it describes a debate, notable in itself, that can nonetheless only have a meaningless outcome. Naturenet | Talk 13:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"here in the UK there have been lots of discussions about which is the largest village in the UK." Really? I've never heard this discussed. More to the point, what people chat about in the pub or over a cup of tea is not suitable for an encyclopedia article. I have looked for reliable sources, and I cannot find any that actually discuss this issue beyond an aside to a particular claimant. Fences&Windows 21:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is not trivial. It contains details of various claims to be the largest village. And it is well referenced. New seeker (talk) 11:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep interesting and neutral. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If there are a number of villages with claims to being a large village in what would normally be considered reliable sources, I don't mind this article being kept. However, even after the pruning last time round, the majority of references supporting these claims are either self-published sites or don't actually report the claim. The remaining villages should be either properly referenced or deleted. After that, we can decide whether a keep, merge or delete is appropriate. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This isn't a topic, it's a stitched together piece of improper synthesis. We don't make articles solely out of asides in mostly primary sources. This is a notable dispute only in the minds of the article creators. Fences&Windows 21:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. You could always create a category, Category:Claimants to largest village in England. Fences&Windows 21:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is a serious discussion of a topic where there are a number of claimants. If the arricle came donw on the side of any of them that would be POV and lead to deletion. It might better be called Claims for the largest vilalge in England (or such like). If there is a need for verification that the claim is being made, then tag for verification. No adequate grounds exist for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Even though the opening sentence says it is a "meaningless" title that doesn't mean the existance and use of the title is non-notable. The article is well referenced and establishes the importance of the term. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well referenced? Most are self-published sources. Computerjoe 's talk 16:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are numerous sources which report the claims of the various contenders and so the matter is notable. Superlatives such as world heavyweight boxing champion are often disputed but so it goes. We're dealing with the real world here and it is often messy. This is not a reason to delete. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice rhetoric, but a poor comparison. Whole books have been written about the world heavyweight boxing championships; no books or even articles have been written about the claims to largest village in England. Fences&Windows 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually one article has certainly been written about it. It's a bit circular to argue that an article should be deleted because no such articles exist.Naturenet | Talk 10:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're surely not trying to use the existence of this article as an argument to support its own existence? That's circular reasoning epitomised! It's not at all circular to ask for secondary sources that have discussed a topic: that's the core of WP:NOTABILITY. Fences&Windows 17:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed not. You said no articles had been written about the topic. I said one had. Nothing circular there. Move along. Naturenet | Talk 22:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as others have argued, a title can be notable even if it is disputed or essentially meaningless, provided the claims to it are sufficiently notable. It isn't a problem that it can be defined in various ways - an article has plenty of space to discuss that (which is why categorisation would be a poor idea). A Google Books search turns up some additional reliable sources which could easily be incorporated, and the related term "largest village in Britain" turns up a few more. Metaphorical use of the term, well attested by those searches, could also well be covered. Warofdreams talk 20:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't just point to a Google search. Show the sources that discuss this topic and use them to improve the article and to demonstrate actual notability. I think your assertion that these sources exist is wishful thinking, because I didn't find any such sources when I looked. A whole lot of "x is the largest village in England" claims in passing does not add up to significant coverage. Fences&Windows 23:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These references are ample for our purpose. They demonstrate that numerous places are referred to by this accolade. We cannot redirect to any one of these places because there is no single holder. A disambiguating article of this sort is thus needed for navigational purposes. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:55, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Guardian and other reliable sources refer to the different location as the largest village in England. Dream Focus 04:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article has reliable sources, which makes it meet general notability guidelines, and describes a topic that is covered. Richard (talk) 04:56, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- Y not? 01:31, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normalforcelessness

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

This is a neologism; in my opinion a clumsy and pedantic one, but those of course are not grounds for deletion. What is grounds for deletion is lack of verifiability that the term is actually in widespread enough use to satisfy WP:NEO. Clicking on the "Findsources" links above will show no mention at all in News, or Books, or Scholar. The article cites three textbooks; I have only been able to check one of those (Fundamentals of Physics), but the term was not mentioned. The edition I checked was older than the one cited, but I also checked, without result, all the more modern physics textbooks in the same section of the University library where I found it.

Most of the few ordinary Ghits are Urban Dictionary, where the word has been since 2005, or WP mirrors. The others include an undated entry in a blog here linking to Urban Dictionary and urging people to "start instituting the use of this word"; the article may be part of this campaign but, with no mention in Google Books or Google Scholar, it does not seem the campaign has got far. Urban Dictionary is not a convincing source; it is significant that Wiktionary, which requires solid attestation, does not have the word. Conclusion: delete per WP:NEO: "Articles on protologisms are usually deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term" - there is not enough evidence that this word is in use, and it is not our business to help promote it. JohnCD (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to Apparent weight. This awkward neologism is unlikely to catch on, but that article needs some tender love and care. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete On further reflection, only trivial material would go in any merge, and there is no particular need to keep around such an unusual redirect. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Apparent weight or Weightlessness. There are sources listed, but I cannot confirm that those sources do or don't use the term. It clearly does not deserve an article, but I am not wholly convinced it should be obliterated. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above - we are not an Urban Dictionary. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term does not appear at all in google scholar or google books, nor does it appear in Ebsco, Gale, or HW Wilson databases available to me. I was not able to locate the specific three books noted in the references section of the article, but none of the college-level physics texts to which I do have access list the term in their indexes or glossaries. I was able to find no indication that this is a term that is currently used within the field. Some jerk on the Internet (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clearly the term is odd and the article can't stand on its own. Regarding merge - please do not look at refs, they are just a cover. All what is said in the article is trivia, which is already reflected on WP and which could be written by anyone who merely studied physics at school. Materialscientist (talk) 01:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I consulted my copy of Halliday and Resnick, and the term appears nowhere. This is pure original research. Skinwalker (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2009 International Series hurricane season

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

At first glance, this appears to be a collection of naming lists for the Atlantic and Eastern Pacific hurricane seasons. But a deeper look reveals the sentence, "the names Ana, Brian, Claudette, Danny, Erika, and Fred were used for the first time." Not only is this incorrect (except for Brian, which isn't even on any of the lists, and Fred, which really was used for the first time this year, all of these names have been in rotation for many years), but it also suggests that the article's creator was attempting to submit fictional tropical cyclones to Wikipedia; see here for a precedent. The utilization of fictional tropical cyclones in Wikipedia articles is accompanied by a high risk of readers believing that the information is real. As such, to prevent falsehood, I nominate this article for deletion. Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a page with no real purpose. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no source, what can be checked is wrong, nom's suspicion seems well founded. I note the author is an SPA with no edits on anything but this list. JohnCD (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, the author seems to have socked at InternationalSeriesBrian (talk · contribs). --Dylan 620 (contribs, logs)^{help us!} 21:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per JC.Jason Rees (talk) 21:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. NW (Talk) 22:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pavel Leonidovich Leonidov

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

Article is not backed by any sources, and Google searches don't produce much apart from one book. Seems to fail WP:BIO. Favonian (talk) 21:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find anything beyond that one book and other entries by this user had been just as vague. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability hasn't been established and I doubt it ever will be. Eeekster (talk) 21:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Leaving out the patronymic gives rather fuller search results Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL, as does using the Russian name, Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. --Paularblaster (talk) 21:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even searching under just his first and last names, I don't find much on the Internet. I'd change my mind if you can find reliable sources online or on paper. Bearian (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MODDES

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

Little better than an advert for a proposed encryption algorithm. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is WP:PN. Tangurena (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to find any mentions besides this primary source. But the Wikipedia article is so vague anyway it's hard to even identify what's being discussed. --Cybercobra (talk) 17:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article should not be deleted by wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.198.130.178 (talk • contribs) — 117.198.130.178 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete. The article does read as self-promotion by "three young researchers on NIT Durgapur, West Bengal, India". Its mere existence stimulates further self-promotion on WP. Materialscientist (talk) 01:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, self promotion or not it sure isn't notable. JBsupreme (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. At best it's an idea being proposed by a user who doesn't yet understand what Wikipedia is for. Regardless, it's obvious original research, and the references predate the topic of the article (which leads back to my first sentence). Someguy1221 (talk) 07:13, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Paul Wozny

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

Autobiography. Is he notable? Sgroupace (talk) 20:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't look like this meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). He's the co-author of two journal articles. That's doesn't distinguish him from the greater mass of academics in North America. Neither of the journals has a wikipedia articles and the awards he's received don't have articles. So that suggests they're not particularly notable. Googling for the air show doesn't turn up anything (at least that I can find early in the results), so it doesn't seem to be the type of event notable enough to confer notability for his role in it. --JamesAM (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence of notability by any standard. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A targeted WoS query shows 2 papers and 3 abstracts for an h-index of 1. Query was "Author=(wozny p*) Refined by: Subject Areas=(ENDOCRINOLOGY & METABOLISM OR PERIPHERAL VASCULAR DISEASE OR NUTRITION & DIETETICS) Timespan=All Years. Databases=SCI-EXPANDED, SSCI, A&HCI". Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 18:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect Franz Mesmer. Ikip (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fariism

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

I can't find any search results on it, so it might be hoax. What do you think? Zoo Fari 20:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now found this source which is similar to what the article's talking about. It's the only source I found so I'll leave this up for you to investigate further. Zoo Fari 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

David Constable

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

Cannot find anything on Google (besides his Facebook and Blogspot pages) to show subject meets WP:BIO. NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 19:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither can I. Also, this seems to be a re-creation of the deleted page David Joseph Constable Declan Clam (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate he is notable, nothing found on google. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment An IP has posted links to Constable's work on Talk:David_Constable. Given the blog-like nature of the entries I'm not sure if this is sufficient to show notability. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best. Edward321 (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Klevis Roshi

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

All these players seem to fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. The Albanian Superliga isn't fully professional. Also including:

Elton Grami
Bledar Vashaku
Renato Hyshmeri
Darling Banushi Spiderone 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Geschichte (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was asked to comment on redirecting these articles. I don't think that's a good solution. What if they change club, should we monitor them at all times? Unlikely search terms anyway. Geschichte (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:35, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Zakaria El Hiyani

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

Appears to be a non-notable youth player. PROD removed for no reason.

A similar artice which I'm also including is this one:

Driss Laânaya

Spiderone 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:33, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sim Young-Jae

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

Contested PROD. Korea National League is only semi-pro and neither article seems to pass WP:GNG.

With:

Jeon Hyun-Seok Spiderone 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Spiderone 19:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both - fail WP:ATHLETE and WP:GNG. Giant Snowman 07:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —PC78 (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I can't find any reliable sources which provide significant coverage of these athletes and there is no evidence that they've played in a fully-pro league. Jogurney (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:23, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Keynes and Border Counties Youth Football League

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

This brings up the question of notability: Does WP need an article on every youth sports league in every county of the US/and other places in the world? (Obviously some that go to the finals will be notable) The article is already listed here: Sport in Milton Keynes#Football. This article should be redirected there. BrianY (talk) 18:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 08:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - looks to be yet another local sports league, nothing notable about it to justify a seperate article. As the nominator notes, it is already mentioned on an existing article - perhaps a redirect is in order? Giant Snowman 08:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I know this league, it's my local youth one, but I'm afraid it isn't notable Spiderone 14:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. GauchoDude (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strawberry Lane, Hammond, Louisiana

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

Non-notable local street. No clear significance of the street established, and no sources whatsoever provided. A bulk of the article also appears to be original research. Article was deprodded by creator and does not fit a CSD criterion. —C.Fred (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable original research... with an apparently made up history... no more notable than any other small street... - Adolphus79 (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm usually kind to streets but I can't find anything of note here. Nothing of historic interest. A middle school and a cooking school seem to be on this street, but I don't see that as reason to have an article about it. --Oakshade (talk) 20:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like a homework assignment. Teachers, it's great for kids to learn how to use Wikipedia, but a user page is more suitable for a lesson plan. Mandsford (talk) 23:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unreferenced self-promotion New seeker (talk) 11:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:LOOKATMYAWESOMETERMPAPER. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 21:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:GNG. Richard (talk) 01:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - withdrawn by nominator OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unsure if subject meets WP:WEB OrangeDog (talk • edits) 17:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure about Tubefilter, but Fox Business, IO9, and the Toronto Star (which I just found via Google News and added) are all perfectly fine references. Seems to meet both the WP:GNG and WP:WEB criterion 1. Jclemens (talk) 20:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. —Jclemens (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has come a long way since earlier today, and the sources assert notability pretty clearly at this point. WP:WEB requires that "The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself"; that is the case now. I agree that Tubefilter isn't the best source, but it seems to deal with such media, and the other refs look fine. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources found today now clearly place this on the keep side. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 21:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you're the nominator. Since no one has yet !voted delete, you can simply withdraw the nomination if you're now convinced it's a keeper. Jclemens (talk) 21:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes. NW (Talk) 03:34, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force)

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

This episode doesn't establish notability. The plot is adequately covered within the episode list and there is little chance for actual expansion. TTN (talk) 17:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Each episode deserves it's own Wikipedia page. There is much more information on the specific episode article, than on the episode list. warrior 4321 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:PLOT. There is little chance that an eleven minute cartoon is going to have enough development and reception information to require an entire article. The plot information cannot hold an article and it is way too bulky anyway. One paragraph is enough to cover it adequately. TTN (talk) 18:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plot is incredibly controversial, check the WP:PLOT talk page.[19] Just recently there was an even number of editors who wanted to delete this section as there were who wanted to keep it. Ikip (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, WP:PLOT is not a policy as it lacks consensus. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Content in entirely in-universe and makes no establishment of notability. No 3rd-party sources. Episode is adequately covered in list article. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Aqua Teen Hunger Force. A good comprimise that would satisfy everyone. Is there a list of Aqua Teen Hunger Force episodes? If so merge there.Ikip (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included on the , Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Talk:Aqua Teen Hunger Force page(s), which are related to this deletion discussion. User:Ikip
There is, and it's already there. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep That episode had more people watching it than most bestselling novels have readers. That makes it notable. And if you don't like it, then you won't ever find the article, it only here if you go looking for it. It isn't about the suggested guidelines, they just an excuse for people to destroy what they personally don't like. TTN has previously nominated the pilot episode of M.A.S.H. and dozens of other episodes from that series for deletion also. You don't like character or episode articles, and want to wipe them all out. If there is nothing at all gained by destroying, then leave it be. Dream Focus 19:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a crime to mark things for deletion, and I personally think you are overreacting with comments like that. You need to settle down, and not turn AFD comments into attacks on the nominator. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination claims that there is little chance for expansion and yet, in just a minute I was able to find and cite a review. Reception-wise, it is described as the funniest show on television and so it clearly merits good coverage here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a DVD review that doesn't even go into detail about the single episodes. How exactly does being funny mean that we need three paragraphs on the plot of something that is only eleven minutes or so long? TTN (talk) 20:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does go into detail, discussing the reappearance of the Mooninites, for example. What we don't need is this nomination, as it seems that you are abusing the AFD process by nominating this article when there was no consensus for your edit to it. The correct action in such cases is to start discussion on the article's talk page, not to bring it here. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't detail. That's an overview. You need some sort of opinionated comment for it to count towards the episode. Warrior is very likely the only person available to actually discuss anything and his viewpoint is quite obvious. Instead of a pointless back and forth discussion, AfD is the best place to take care of this. TTN (talk) 20:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RFC for the correct way of attracting additional editors to a deadlocked discussion. AFD is a not a general purpose article discussion and dispute resolution service. AFD is overloaded and drive-by nominations which have not passed WP:BEFORE should be speedily closed. Colonel Warden (talk) 21:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not going to open an RfC for every single disputed redirect. AfD is perfectly fine for something like this. TTN (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep In general, individual episodes can be valid spinout articles. Redirecting to a list of episodes presents a Catch-22: adding enough material to a list of episodes will be deleted for putting too much emphasis on that article. No gradual accretion of material can exist in that way. Episode articles with just a plot summary usually serve as valid stubs for gradually adding content. In this case, the plot summary is a mishmash of poorly written material. Spinout articles deserve a better attempt than this one has gotten and it would be no loss if this was deleted without prejudice to a future attempt. Colonel Warden's finding of an external source is a valid first step to rescuing this, thus the weak keep. Miami33139 (talk) 20:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the original version of this article if you're taking development time into account. I believe the original articles had at least a good year and a half to develop before they were removed. This one is just one of the many recreations. TTN (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds then that this has interest. It may develop better if every new attempt didn't have to start from scratch. Miami33139 (talk) 22:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we were talking about a more eventful series, I would probably agree that interest is a good thing. But this series is just the definition of randomness. I really doubt that anyone is going to provide significant production or reception details on single episode of it. The series itself would really be the only target for such information. If you're not familiar with it, I believe adultswim.com has some videos to show what I mean. TTN (talk) 22:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and protected redirect We have good coverage of this at the LOE, so the individual entry is a magnet for fancruft and contains no independent, real-world information that establishes notability and prevents this from falling under WP:NOT#PLOT. Eusebeus (talk) 21:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is not a stable policy, and cannot currently be used as justification. warrior 4321 23:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Claim that there is no potential for expansion appears invalid, and there are indications of notability. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and protect the redirect as this is entirely in-universe. JBsupreme (talk) 22:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously not entirely in-universe as there's lots of references to the real world - air dates, writers, continuity, episode numbers and so forth. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmmmmmmmmmm, respectfully I must disagree with you on that. JBsupreme (talk) 23:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a vote and assertions which contradict the facts are obviously unacceptable. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOLWUT. JBsupreme (talk) 06:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

? This is not a ballot vote, please justify a reason for your delete, or strike your vote out. warrior 4321 11:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As it isn't a ballot vote, why should it be struck? Anyways, it's up to the closing admin to decide if a vote is valid or not, not you. Quantpole (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:Honest, we should not "say things they know to be untrue simply to support their argument.". Colonel Warden (talk) 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the keep votes seem to be based on the premise that there should be an article for any episode of any TV show, if someone is willing to write one. To some extent, I think these should be tolerated for at least seven days before merging back to an article about the season, since it's a good opportunity for someone to sharpen their writing skills by writing about a subject that they enjoy. However, I see no encyclopedic value in someone taking notes while watching a TV show, or for having their own personal website about a TV series. The test still has to be WP:N, and I haven't seen any suggestion that "The Last One" has received some type of recognition in independent sources. I appreciate that Colonel W has at least tried to find a source, instead of relying on arguments like shows "deserve" their own articles, or that more people TV instead of reading books; still, it looks like little more than a one-sentence mention of what will be found on Volume 3 of ATHF. Mandsford (talk) 22:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You fail to justify a delete vote. My addition has provided a source. The List article which others prefer is inferior as it has zero sources for this episode. It is illogical to favour an article which is worse than this one. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots of articles worse than this one, but that has nothing to do with whether I think the subject is worth its own article. Mandsford (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

He's saying that the article on deletion is better sourced than the article that contains only a short episode plot, which will where this is redirected to. warrior 4321 23:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The part I'm reading is "you fail" and "it is illogical". Seems to me that the source could be added to the other article. Mandsford (talk) 00:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is not the level of coverage to justify this having its own article. Adequately covered in the list of episodes. Quantpole (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In spite of ARS rescue tag, no sources have come to light. Abductive (reasoning) 19:32, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#PLOT. Primarily plot summary, no reason to expect that situation to change.—Kww(talk) 01:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PLOT is not a policy as it is currently undergoing revision. warrior 4321 01:34, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT#PLOT is most certainly policy. There is a small group of editors that believes they can ignore it. I suggest that you ignore them.—Kww(talk) 01:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking for a little clarification here. While WP:NOTPLOT clearly is policy, nothing in that policy requires the deletion of articles which fail it. Instead, the appropriate response would appear to parallel that for part 1 of WP:DICDEF: "Articles that contain nothing more than a definition should be expanded with additional encyclopedic content, if possible." Similarly, other (sub)policy provisions in WP:NOT call for the expansion, modification, or elimination of inappropriate content. WP:NOTPLOT also says that "A concise plot summary is sometimes appropriate as part of the larger coverage of a fictional work," yet many if not most plot summaries I've come across are bloated beyond reason and dominate their articles rather than shining light on cited critical commentary [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] are examples. This article appears far more easily correctible, and far less severe a WP:NOTPLOT violation than many other movie/tv articles. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 02:35, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I added "no reason to expect that situation to change." If this was something awaiting a pile of reviews (like a movie that was being released in days), then there's a reasonable expectation that the article will grow into an article that doesn't violate WP:NOT#PLOT. In this case, there's no reason to believe that a large body of criticism is going to appear in the future for a six-year-old episode. Most of the other articles you mention need a serious axe taken to them. The Kremlin Letter is clearly salvageable, and the others stand a decent chance. This doesn't.—Kww(talk) 02:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTPLOT is not policy as there is no consensus for it, as established by a major RfC. The link is only maintained by a small number of hardline editors per WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to an appropriate episode list. Edward321 (talk) 03:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mandsford's excellent rationale about the article's notability. Also, WP:NOTPLOT is a current policy, whether some editors agree with it or not (just check the page header). Them From Space 00:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catriculate

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

Non-notable neologism. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 17:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete as neologism (unless proved otherwise).--The very model of a minor general (talk) 17:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above, non-notable neologism Giant Snowman 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 17:44, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Metalchicks

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

Per WP:Music, states itself as a supergroup but does not give any indication of why the two members are notable. Sources are mostly vendors. SKATER ^Speak. 17:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both members' bands have wikipedia articles. The band has also done soundtrack material for a Japanese film. I have actually requested on the talk page that we need some actual Japanese sources, as I do not speak the language myself. As far as WP:MUSIC, they satisfy points 1, possibly 2, maybe 4 (they played at the SXSW festival in the USA), 5 (two albums released in Japan), possible 6 (although the two musicians aren't notable enough to have their own pages - this is not the claim for notability, but I think it still counts as a supergroup, in the same way that Tinted Windows (band) does), possibly 10 (assuming the film is notable), and probably 11 in Japan. Is this not sufficient? Luminifer (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - One member was part of 2 notable bands (DMBQ and OOIOO); the other is a former member of notable Buffalo Daughter. So this meets WP:Music #6. I also added six more references. 'Supergroup' might be a little strong for Metalchicks, but that is not a reason to delete the article. That part could be reworded. Clubmarx (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Clubmarx (talk) 00:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nomination. BC Rocky (talk) 08:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a group is not a supergroup does not mean it should be deleted, and the second claim in the nomination is that the article is all vendor sources, which is now also untrue. So what is the exact reason you are agreeing with here? Thanks.. Luminifer (talk) 15:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -Seems notable enough. I can see there may be a problem getting references due to need for translation. --Alchemist Jack (talk) 21:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The group now clearly meets WP:MUSIC thanks to some good detective work. Chubbles (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Durie Osborn

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

This person apparently served in the British army in the 1850s and commanded various detachments, and was notable for defeating a party of rebels at Tudhoorkee. But, it that really notable? I don't think WP has a place for an article about every single lieutenant who defeated someone in a war (say World War Two, or Iraq, or whatever) There doesn't appear to be a whole lot of sources for Osborn. The second part about him being a serious thinker on both religious and political topics is opinionated: "They are models of graceful treatment of a perplexing subject" BrianY (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article needs to be wikified, and I agree that the second part of the article must be changed or removed. Nevertheless, Osborn's military career appears to be notable enough for inclusion, in my opinion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you something. How do you define a notable military career? BrianY (talk) 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, first of all, typically subjects with notable military careers served as officers. Such is the case with Osborn, who eventually attained the rank of major (and then, apparently, the honorary rank of lieutenant colonel). Secondly, the subject must have commanded a significant number of troops in a significant military action. This is also true of Osborn, with his service in India. In addition, a subject's military career is often notable if the subject has been decorated with one or more medals for his service. Of course, none of these criteria are deal-breakers either way; they are simply my personal opinion as to notability, and I admit that they skew towards an inclusionist standpoint. Nevertheless, I feel that they altogether make Osborn a notable enough military figure for inclusion in Wikipedia, even if he wasn't a truly "major" figure in the military history of British India. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"He commanded a detachment of the 4th Punjaub infantry at the actions of Gungeree and Puttiallee" I admit I don't know much about Gungeree and Puttiallee. (they don't have WP articles though) That seems to be the infantry he commanded at a (major? minor? non-notable?) battle... BrianY (talk) 18:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this article uses many obsolete spellings for some very well known places. For example, Punjaub is Punjab; Puttiallee is Patiala; Oude is Oudh/Awadh, an older name for (roughly) Uttar Pradesh/Lucknow etc. A person more knowledgeable is the area may be able to associate the listed places and battles with their modern names. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If it's notable enough for the Dictionary of National Biography... OrangeDog (talk • edits) 18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Was going to delete, but as the above user has highlighted, if the individual has an ODNB entry, then it's highly likely he's notable. Skinny87 (talk) 17:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep on the very well principal that anyone who gets a full entry in a highly selective national biography like the old or the new DNB is notable. They;re the better judge than we are. But all articles from the old really do need a check for updating. DGG ( talk ) 14:01, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- Abecedare (talk) 00:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As has been noted an entry in the DNB clearly establishes notability. Also see the numerous hits on Google Books, including several books authred by Osborn; some of which are even in print ~140 years later! Article needs wikification, but is an obvious keep. Abecedare (talk) 01:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If he's notable enough for a print encyclopedia, he's notable enough for Wikipedia. Edward321 (talk) 03:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Aran Spencer-Higgins

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

The only claim to notability here is unsourced and highly dubious ThaddeusB (talk) 16:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject's notability does not appear to be verifiable. I was not able to located any reliable sources to back up the claim to notability in the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I found zero sources for this. Joe Chill (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete: Appears to be hoax. BrianY (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverifiable at best, probable hoax. Edward321 (talk) 03:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, G11. Normally, this would have been a borderline case, but the fact that the author's username matches the article name pushed it over the line. Author blocked as a spam-only account. Blueboy 96 18:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alter The Press!

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

Does not appear to meet WP:WEB - nothing in Google/News to indicate notability. Leuko ^Talk/_Contribs 16:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you will find Google provides various sources about Alter The Press. See Google search results.

I think deletion of the article is VERY wrong and unjustified. AlterThePress.com is well-known and notable music website, that deserves to be on Wikipedia. I believe these are valid reasons for keeping the article on Wikipedia.Alter The Press! (talk) 16:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G3 as a blatant hoax. The creating editor has created 11 total articles about this unreferenced series. —C.Fred (talk) 16:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Season 5: New York City

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

Couldn't find a CSD criteria that this article met, so I'm bringing it here. Appears to be an American television show, but I'm having a lot of trouble finding any context or anything that would tell me what the heck it is! Frmatt (talk) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After further research and wiki-searching, have found that this may be part of an elaborate hoax based on Under One Roof (Series), and have nominated it and all of its associated pages under CSD G3. Frmatt (talk) 16:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

24 (Movie)

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

Prod removed by author with no improvement. Upcoming movie with no evidence of starting principal photography. Fails WP:NFF. Tassedethe (talk) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:NFF. Joe Chill (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete! Wow, I looked at sources before opening the article. I was expecting to note that a movie was being made about the TV show, and that would be a case to disagree with NFF. The failure of that movie would be notable even if it failed to film. This movie, that this article is written about, is not that movie, and this movie has nothing credible to offer until it is made (or even then!). Miami33139 (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NFF as explained by the nom. JBsupreme (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete, there's more than enough time for this film to be discussed. In fact there is no official word about it, just rumours. Eelam StyleZ (talk) 22:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 19:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete I saw the news from behindwoods and indiaglitz websites which i think are reliable websites.Valli Narayanan 12:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 00:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gore Road railway station

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

Apparently unverifiable. The Anome (talk) 11:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am prepared to change my view if this station can be verified but I can't track down any sources and it isn't mentioned here. Bridgeplayer (talk) 01:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless it can be verified. No mention in Jowett's Railway Atlas. Mjroots (talk) 06:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - I think it's a hoax. The box at the bottom says it was on the Bishop's Stortford-Braintree Branch Line, yet the article on the branch line makes no mention of it. Googling "gore road station" also brings up nothing relating to this station. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 10:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 10:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, unreferenced, no significance whatsoever New seeker (talk) 11:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I refuse to believe there was ever a railway station with a 5m platform. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 17:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: although it's just concievable an alighting point might once have existed, since the now-disused railway line that passed through Rayne railway station appears to have passed the end of Gore Road in Rayne, as can be seen here on this old map, it definitely can't have been a "station": there is clearly no station or halt marked at that point on the map. -- The Anome (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I've not found any google results for "Gore Road Halt" or "Gore Road Platform" either, at least in GWR territory a calling point had to have goods-handling facilities to be called a "station" until relatively recently. "Halt" and "Platform" were common names for lesser stopping places - I don't know if this was the same in the relevant part of teh country to this debate though. Thryduulf (talk) 22:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed M. Seddik

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

A variety of impressive claims are on offer here, but I see no way to source them -- news results for Ahmed Seddik are not many and mainly to other people, and there is virtually nothing in Gscholar. Perhaps sources are available in Arabic -- if so, great. But I don't think we want an article like this that has virtually no prospect of being sourced properly. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.
Delete. Seems like a young and talented person, who could achieve notability in the future, but who has still a long way to go. I am always suspicious of notability when subjects state on the own web sites (see http://www.ahmedseddik.com) that they are experts in areas as diverse as Egyptology, linguistics, mathematics and physics. Perhaps they were very talented in all those areas in high school and/or college, because they were outstanding students, but WP:PROF notability refers to a much higher level and usually more focused expertise.--Eric Yurken (talk) 14:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I deprodded this article at one stage, mistaking the subject for another person. Notability does not yet seem to have been achieved but may be in future. More substantive WP:RSs are required. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Rational in my previous PROD. 黒い白い (KuroiShiroi) 02:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not yet notable, makes it very difficult to properly source. Kevin (talk) 06:06, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In view of current activity on the page it may have to be salted. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete Not notable at moment, with a lack of sources of information. Admittedly, I didn't look at Arabic language sources, but Google News gave a minor mention at ufolog.ru (9 Sep 2009), another one at CNN Student News (5 June 2009), where he respond's to Obama's US-Muslim speech. Other than that, all the other Google news resutls are about a footballer, and one of Saddam Hussein's lawyers. Google Scholar and Google Books returned nothing about this Egyptologist. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 14:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 12:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander Avtsin

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

Prod removed by a WP:PNT regular who admitted his lack of knowlegeability. The article states that this player was on the HC Dynamo Moscow roster, but actually, according to the few news sources available, he was on that team's junior roster. He was drafted by the Montreal Canadiens (4th round), but will play instead for the Quebec Remparts. Delete with no prejudice against recration once he graduates with the big team, or becomes a star in his new junior team. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 12:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Im am the PNT reg with no knowledgeability! I hope I did the right thing to rescue this article from the almost certain oblivion that being rather dubiously notable in the first place, and unsourced and the sources I could find are at odds with the statements in the article(thanks BlanchardB for asserting that is the case, I did add the one reference I could find but as you suggest it was not clear who he was actually playing for right now). Since it was relatively short it seemed worth translating to allow others, not necessarily francophones, to make a more informed decision.

I don't mind it being deleted, but with the reservation that a lot of these kinds of articles do start off as stubs, and it should not be deleted solely on that premiss, in my opinion (i.e. don't take a deletionist standpoint as such, but it may be worth deleting because the information as it stands is at best probably useless, and at worst erroneous not my doing, errors excepted, since there was no mention e.g. of Quebec Ramparts in the original text). A week for possible improvements before deletion seems more than enough. BlanchardB being from Montreal probably is in much better posession of the facts about the Montreal Canadiens than I am, living as he does in Montreal and presuming he cares more about [ice] hockey than I do! SimonTrew (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just want you to know there was no wrongdoing on your part. :-) -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 21:47, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't take it that way. Just that for short articles sometimes it's easier, I think, simply to translate them and then decide after whether they are worth keeping. SimonTrew (talk) 22:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - He will split this season between the junior and the senior team and has played his first game in the KHL according to this source: [26] AEJ (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - there is some coverage about him as a 4th round pick by Montreal, but the coverage isn't very substantial. No prejudice to creating the article when he garners more attention at the junior level or makes it to a top tier league. -- Whpq (talk) 16:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 22:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite 10:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per User:AEJ above, would appear to now meet WP:ATHLETE. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:06, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Segal

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

Nothing in the article to suggest that this musician meets the requirements of WP:MUSIC. So far all it asserts is that this guy has worked with a string of notable musicians. This in itself is not evidence of notability. All the article's references do is show that the "has worked with" list is correct, although many of the refs are not from what would usually be reliable sources. My prod was removed by an IP who made no attempt to demonstrate the required notability. I don't really care whether the article is deleted or not, but with any luck this AfD will force someone to either prove the notability or at least make an attempt to improve this trainwreck of a musician stub. WebHamster 10:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Beloved Freak 10:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As far as I can tell, the subject does not meet any of the criteria laid out at WP:MUSICBIO. As WebHamster notes, working with a string of notable musicians isn't one of those criteria. I would be willing to change my vote to "keep" if notability under WP:MUSICBIO is demonstrated. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No non-trivial sources. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 17:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for him. Joe Chill (talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. MuZemike 17:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Birmingham Archaeology

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

Somebody put this up for speedy, but I don't think it qualifies. I am not sure, however, if Birmingham Archeology meet WP:N or WP:GROUP. I removed the CSD template and the associated hang-on template. I put it up for this AfD discussion without any clear opinion myself on whether or not it should be deleted. I just think it needs to be discussed. The group was involved in retrieving the Staffordshire Hoard, which may just be enough to fullfil notability criteria, as this discovery could go beyond the one-event rule, which I suppose only applies to WP:BLPs anyway. So let's get the ball rolling on discussion. -Lilac Soul ^{(Talk • Contribs)} 07:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:N and WP:RS..South Bay (talk) 07:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible keep Since it is involved in a major news story it will probably get more media coverage. The fact that it is entrusted with such an important responsibility shows its importance. Borock (talk) 08:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Future notability" hasn't saved an article from deletion yet. Being selected for field work in no way confers notability; in many cases volunteers are used, or teenagers from an archeology summer camp. Abductive (reasoning) 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~, This is a commercial branch of a department of a university with no real claim to notability. The horde was discovered by guy with a metal detector, and the real study of these artifacts hasn't even begun. Abductive (reasoning) 09:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there is coverage in news sources (courtesy of Google News) predating their involvement in the Staffordshire Hoard event. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there are mentions, but which of those news items confers notability to this corporation? Abductive (reasoning) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that the Birmingham Mail articles do since they are about digs organised by Birmingham Archaeology. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query. Has anybody tried looking for sources on this organization under its former name? E.g. Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL --Paularblaster (talk) 21:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, and I'm withdrawing my delete notvote; there has to be fire under all that smoke. Abductive (reasoning) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:03, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moonies

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

Comment: renamed to Moonie (Unification Church).

Wikipedia can not have an article on every word. This article has no secondary sources, beyond dictionaries, which discuss the word in depth. This is in marked contrast to our article on the "N-word". Borock (talk) 07:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Why not just boldly Redirect to Unification Church? --NellieBly (talk) 07:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unification Church. Although the word has not received "significant coverage" (as opposed to casual usage), it is a prominent synonym for UC members, so a redirect is appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: although I have concerns about the substantiveness of some of the material (particularly the early additions post-AfD), and whether it serves any good purpose to discuss this topic independently of Unification Church, there now appears to be sufficient material to withstand a challenge on the grounds of WP:Notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect. The group is certainly notable. Eeekster (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Keep Enough well-sourced material has been added so that WP:N has been satisfied. Although I think this is an interesting article (I am a "Moonie" myself and also worked on the article), I have to agree with the nominator that it doesn't rise to the level of WP:Notability based on the sources given. BTW the word "Moonies" is already mentioned in Unification Church. If much more than that was added to that article it would be giving undue weight since 90% or more of UC members do not live in English speaking nations and have nothing to do with the word "Moonies". Steve Dufour (talk) 09:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Steve, did you know that this is only the English-language Wikipedia? The term Moonie has very often been applied in English media and books over the last 4 decades. --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't my point. The article Unification Church is about the world-wide church. So putting a lot of info on the English slang word "Moonies" there wouldn't be appropriate since most members don't even speak English. Steve Dufour (talk) 20:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Steve Dufour (talk · contribs), for recognizing that "Enough well-sourced material has been added so that WP:N has been satisfied." Cirt (talk) 02:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - term is widely employed by the mainstream media (see Google News, for example) and is well established in the public lexicon. A redirect is not appropriate because the term is sometimes used when not referring to the Unification Church as a sort of generic "cultish" term (there is an example in the article of this type of usage). The article needs to have better sourcing, but more than enough are available to satisfy notability guidelines. A comparison with something like Fenian can be made. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTDICTIONARY. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 12:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and occasional usage of a term as a metaphor does not mean that it has significant meaning beyond the original usage. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very noteworthy. Satisfies WP:NOTE. Topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Literally thousands of possible sources in books and scholarly sources. Note: Among the books and scholarly sources, multiple sources have the very title of their works using "Moonies..." in the title. Cirt (talk) 14:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Literally thousands of possible sources in books and scholarly sources" ≠ "significant coverage". These "possible sources" are generally no more than mere usage of the term 'Moonies' in talking about the Unification Church. This does not mean that there is any significant coverage of the term, as opposed to the church. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There are many of them that do discuss it. Cirt (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unsubstantiated assertion! Which of them "do discuss it", let alone give "significant coverage" to discussing it? Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 14:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to use exclamation points at me. I will work on the article. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have added the {{WIP}} tag to the article, and I will work on in to expand the article with information from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 14:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is against policy here to every trace of information about a subject, merely because it lacks secondary sources. I daresay most of the information in this encyclopedia is common knowledge, or off the top of a writer's head, or from the topic's own website. Please do not reduce this article to a redirect as an excuse for deleting useful information. It is better to help other writers by looking up sources. --Uncle Ed (talk)

Comment: Ed's claims are in fact contradicted by policy -- specifically WP:V ("If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.") & WP:NOR. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 18:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However you fail to note that there are reliable, third-party sources on the topic. Cirt (talk) 18:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is you who "fail[s] to note" (i) that my response was to Ed's claims about "information [that] lacks secondary sources" & (ii) that "trivial" mentions do not add to notability. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. The article now demonstrates satisfying WP:NOTE. Still working on some additional research however. Cirt (talk) 02:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Unification Church. Much of the content seems relevant and verified, but should be integrated with the main article. I don't think it's up to the standard of Mormon for example. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be inappropriate to merge - please note that the term has a meaning of itself now separate from that article's topic: [27]. Cirt (talk) 19:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reserving my judgement--whether this should be merged to UC or kept--until Cirt finishes the cleanup. I do, however, vehemently reject the idea that it should not at least be a redirect. Jclemens (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per improvements. Good job, Cirt. Jclemens (talk) 02:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you for your positive comments about my work, Jclemens (talk · contribs), I really appreciate it. :) Cirt (talk) 02:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I am still working through book sources, have not yet progressed to research from news sources or journal sources. Will get to it soon. Cirt (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm gonna go out on a limb and assume that Cirt is going to fix the problems that seem to exist within the article. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks so much, Dennis The Tiger, for your kind words. Cirt (talk) 02:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly not appropriate to delete, and there appears to be enough sourceable information to support an article on the term itself. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would note that the recently-introduced 'Commentary' section is no more than a string of bare mentions ("trivial" coverage as that term is defined in WP:NOTE) of "Moonie" in various sources (and in one occasion in a book title). I would suggest that this level of usage is true of hundreds of thousands (possibly even millions) of words or phrases, and that this mere usage does not bestow any particular notability. In no case does it appear that the cited usage/mention contains any more information about the term than is already covered by the lead paragraph (or a trivial variation thereof). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 04:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If editors take time to actually read the article in its entirety, they will see that this assertion by Hrafn (talk · contribs) is actually wholly incorrect. Despite the addition of independent reliable secondary sources that give a good deal of discussion of the subject, unfortunately it appears that Hrafn (talk · contribs) is unhappy with the article's subject for some reason and wishes to maintain a position of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I encourage editors to read the entire article and examine the sources used so far. I will continue to do further research on the topic. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"If editors take time to actually read the article in its entirety, they will see…" that Cirt (talk · contribs) has strung together a a long string of brief/bare/trivial mentions. This is why every sentence has a different source -- because none of the sources contain "significant coverage". This is also why the material appears to be largely fragmentary & repetitive. I would suggest that Cirt (talk · contribs) takes his WP:Complete bollocks accusations of WP:IDONTLIKEIT & stick them where the sun don't shine -- as they are just symptoms of his WP:IREALLYDONTLIKEPEOPLEPOINTINGOUTTHATMYEMPERORHASNOCLOTHES. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 09:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yet again, another wholly false and bad faith assertion by Hrafn (talk · contribs). If editors take the time to read the whole article, they will note the significant coverage in a variety of independent reliable secondary sources. However, I have not yet had time to expand upon discussion from those sources, as I am still doing research. There are multiple sources that give a good deal more discussion - I just have not expanded upon them yet - but some of them already have bits of that significant discussion touched upon in the article. Hrafn (talk · contribs) also appears to have failed to note that in addition to the Commentary subsection, the History subsection was also expanded upon, with material from independent reliable secondary sources. Cirt (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't turn this AfD into a battleground. I think it is clear that any doubts that may have existed about the appropriateness of this article have been eradicated by the good work Cirt has done, so I am not sure why Hrafn feels the need to continue objecting to its existence (particular in such a hostile manner). Let us please assume good faith and cease the bickering, shall we? -- Scjessey (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scjessey (talk · contribs) - you make a very good point, I will do my part to attempt to cease the bickering. Thank you for your kind words about the "good work" I have done on this article. Cirt (talk) 11:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 07:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — per improvements made by Cirt. --ざくら木 11:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much Zakuragi (talk · contribs), for your kind words about my improvements to the article. Cirt (talk) 11:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Unification Church. While extensively sourced, this article essentially does nothing but state that the term is a sometimes-derogatory term for members of that church. It states that in many different ways and with reference to many different sources, but I just don't see the value here. There's nothing here that can't be covered by a good dictionary entry. At any rate, the article titled "Moonies", if there is to be one, ought to be about the people themselves, not the term by which they are known (per WP:NAD); until that article takes shape, the title should be a redirect. Powers ^T 13:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have a good point about the name itself, moved accordingly to Moonie (term). Cirt (talk) 13:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's been moved again to Moonie (Unification Church) which has the same problem as in my original statement. This is why it's a bad idea to move articles during a deletion discussion. For the record: Moonie should be the disambiguation page currently at Moonie (disambiguation) instead of a redirect to Moonie (Unification Church). Moonies should redirect to the disambiguation page. Moonie (term), as a redirect, should be deleted. Moonie (Unification Church) should be deleted (or redirected if some content is salvageable and merged into the main church article, until such time as an article on the members of the church is created, as I mentioned in my original comment). Powers ^T 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article clearly goes beyond a mere dicdef to provide a detailed history of the usage and connotations of the term. Compare Gay for an etymological article in a similar vein. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. the article has been improved significantly since it was nominated. It has quadrupled in size, and now has dozens of secondary sources. The article is good and topical is noteworthy. Will Beback talk 21:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I significantly expanded the History subsection. I still have a bit more research to do and more sources to incorporate - specifically a few more scholarly sources and book sources that go into discussion of the subject matter. Cirt (talk) 22:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did not really knw much about this group except through news clips. Why delete it when it can inform people. But need to make sure it is NPOV. History2007 (talk) 11:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But this article is not supposed to be about the group, it's about the word. OrangeDog (talk • edits) 06:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is not about the group, rather about the term, its history, the group's response to this, and commentary from scholars about it. Cirt (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary says that WP articles should be about things not words. The other two articles mentioned as examples, Nigger and Gay, are about words whose use in history and present culture are so important that WP:Ignore all rules comes into play. In my opinion "Moonies" doesn't have the same kind of importance. Northwestgnome (talk) 04:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's got to be one of the most novel and pointless invocations of IAR I've ever seen. You've advocated or !voted for deletion of multiple UC items since I've been monitoring the topic, NWG. I would have expected that you could come up with a better argument. Jclemens (talk) 15:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with your understanding of "not a dictionary." However there are actually many articles about individual words and their meanings here. I personally think that "Moonies" is interesting and important enough a word to be included in this group. (As I said before I might be prejudiced since I am a UC member myself. My initial vote to "delete" was based on lack of sources - now corrected - not lack of notability.) Steve Dufour (talk) 18:52, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Over half of WP's articles on the Unification Church have already been deleted or merged, mostly without AfD's. Northwestgnome (talk) 03:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Surprised this discussion is ongoing. It's clearly notable as a term and Cirt has done a good job fleshing it out. For those swinging WP:NOTE around, remember that the threshold for not deleting is whether sourcing exists to support a separate article, not whether the article has been fleshed out at the moment. ...it is important to not just consider whether notability is established by the article, but whether it readily could be. Remember that all Wikipedia articles are not a final draft, and an article can be notable if such sources exist even if they have not been added at present. — e. ripley\^talk 15:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. notable word from my childhood. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are there any unnotable words?Borock (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Due to at least two page moves during the course of this AfD, it's no longer clear what article this AfD is referring to, nor which version various recommendations above target. For instance, my original recommendation "redirect" was based on the original title Moonies. That no longer applied when the page was moved to Moonie (term), and now that the page is at Moonie (Unification Church), my original reasoning is partly still relevant and partly moot. I suspect I'm not the only one whose logic was disrupted by moving the page in the middle of an AfD. Powers ^T 13:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At first I moved it to Moonies (term) due to your comment, and then to Moonie (Unification Church) to be more specific and tighter to the actual application and the topic it references. This is the most appropriate location so it can stay there. :) Cirt (talk) 13:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you would move it back to its original place, pending the outcome of this discussion. --Uncle Ed (talk) 14:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have given no reason as to why. Cirt (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, an article titled "Moonie (Unification Church)" should be about the people who belong to that organization, not the word that describes them. Powers ^T 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But that term is controversial, so such an article would be titled something like "Members of the Unification Church" or "Followers of Sun Myung Moon". Cirt (talk) 14:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That might be a good idea for an article. Then Unification Church could be about the organization itself. There are probably enough sources for an article on church members. There was a study reported in the Washington Post as well as Dr. Barker's famous book. Borock (talk) 14:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that would be a good idea for an article, but it would be a different subject matter - about the individuals rather than the term. Cirt (talk) 14:34, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That was what I was trying to say as well. I didn't mean it would replace this one. Borock (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Cirt (talk) 14:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but my statement is not logically contradicted by that fact. Saying "An article titled 'X' should be about 'Y'" doesn't mean that the article about 'Y' would actually be titled 'X'. What I mean is that the article is titled as if it were about the Moonies; it should, if it must exist, instead be titled as if it were about the word. Powers ^T 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully disagree, it is quite obvious that the article is about the term. Cirt (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

From just the title? I don't see how. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, very noteworthy. The word is in every sense the equivalent of the LDS "Mormon," in that it is a better-known term than the formal title itself. People know who the "Moonies" are but not who the "Unificationists" are.Delacratic (talk) 15:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good reason to redirect to Unification Church. Borock (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "keep" and "merge"? If so, what would we call the new section? How about "What people have called the members"? --Uncle Ed (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The title of what subsection to call a subsection in an article would take place at the talk page of that article after the closing administrator had assessed consensus at this AfD. Cirt (talk) 18:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to a short section of "moonie" in Unification Church, but merging and dumping all the info in this article into that one would be very confusing to the readers - to say the least. That's one reason I voted to keep this article, besides that is interesting in itself as the story of a controversial word. Steve Dufour (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Cirt (talk) 20:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't really all that much information here that would have to be merged. Much of it is redundant, or direct quotations, both of which can be easily reduced or eliminated. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article speaks exactly on the topic of its title: history and usage of the particular term. It does not speak about the Moonies themselves; a separate subject; sufficient amount of diverse non-trivial info hence no merge. Precedents: Nigger/Black people/African American, feces/shit, etc. - Altenmann >t 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not what it's title says. The title says "Moonie", which is a member of the church. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The goal is to create an impressive and authoritative encyclopedia, and I'm really not seeing how this page detracts from that image. It's obviously well-referenced, and much effort has gone into keeping it neutral. It's true that it's the kind of page that can go non-neutral in a heartbeat if we don't keep an eye on it, so I understand some of the anxiety about it, but that's a problem for another day. Today, it's a shining example of what Wikipedia gets right and just about every other reference source gets wrong. - Dank (push to talk) 15:46, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think neutrality is a major concern. Rather, the question is whether this word, by itself, is notable enough to justify an entire encyclopedia article devoted solely to it and not to the concept it denotes. Powers ^T 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

QuickPar

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

DELETE as a non-notable software product which lacks non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable third party publications. I'm beginning to worry we are lending WP:BIAS to these types of software applications on Wikipedia, but hopefully not in this one instance. JBsupreme (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep I've added references to this article. Notability is not temporary. The nom is acting in bad faith in nominating this article and SmartPAR for AfD as he was already aware of a reliable source that covers this subject. This book is linked in the Deletion Review that JBsupreme initiated after he did not like the outcome of the Parchive AfD:
Wang, Wallace (2004-10-25). "Finding movies (or TV shows): Recovering missing RAR files with PAR and PAR2 files". Steal this File Sharing Book (1st ed.). San Francisco, California: No Starch Press. pp. 164 –&#32, 167. ISBN 1-59327-050-X. Retrieved 2009-09-24.
Despite JBsupreme's claims otherwise, the above book gives several pages coverage to this software and also includes a number of screenshots.
--Tothwolf (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Your persistent claims that I am acting in "bad faith" are COMPLETELY unfounded and treading on personal attacks. I strongly advise you to withdraw said remarks. Furthermore, the citations you have provided here do not surpass the definition of non-trivial coverage at all. Sorry. JBsupreme (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is the DeFacto stand-alone software application used for verifying Usenet downloads as well as many other types of files. It was the first mainstream application to utilise the par2 standard. --WebHamster 13:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete One mere mention as a tool does not make something notable. Miami33139 (talk) 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I wondered how long it would take you to show up here, Miami33139, since you already publicly admitted to stalking my contribs and following me around to XfD. Your assertion of "one mere mention" is not backed up by the fact that this software is covered in published works (multiple pages of text and screenshots) and making the assertion you just made only serves to discredit you even further. --Tothwolf (talk) 18:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I am dubious about the need for all these bits of software, but it seems reasonably sourced.- Sinneed 18:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough references, software is still in use. 83.254.210.47 (talk) 19:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to an Implementations section in Parchive. Demonstrably verifiable, but I can't see it ever growing beyond its current stub-length. —Korath (Talk) 15:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 clearly no consensus to delete the article. There is no clear consensus between keeping this as a separate article and redirecting, but that is matter for the normal editing process. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:37, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Special creation

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Special creation

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

This article is really about instances of the words "special" and "creation" being found next to each other. There is no consistant meaning for this expression since it is used in various ways, as the article explains. Borock (talk) 06:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect/disambiguate to Creationism. The number of Google Book sources that yield "Special Creation" capitalised demonstrates that it is a term of art, not merely "the words 'special' and 'creation' being found next to each other". It is ambiguous (see for example this source) whether this concept can be distinguishable from Creationism more generally. However, at the very least, this is a prominent synonym for that topic. If the Catholic concept is thought to be prominent (and a target can be found), turning this article into a dab-page may be appropriate. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I ran into this with Vacuum level as this is a bit of a contraction for an (energy) level (of an electron) in a vacuum but it often appears as an unrelated phrase (" keep the vacuum level as you clean the floor"). So, some citations may be about the special creation you made for dinner, the term does come up in the intended context enough to be mentioned somewhere AFAIK. IF nothing else, maybe a redirect to another creationism page or a dab page. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the article copy to Wiktionary; a perfect place for a pair of definitions coming custom-made with citations to idiomatic usage. That doesn't automatically mean we shouldn't keep it here as well, but it probably should be merged into Creationism. bd2412 T 15:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
Redirect to the creationism page. It's a term that doesn't make any "special" distinction between it and creationism as it is. Auntie E. 15:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: I feel that I'm much too green to offer content related input (until such time as I have had a chance to get comfortable with the criteria for judging same), however, I have an observation that I think is applicable here. Please forgive if this is 'hair-splitting'. It presents that there is a possible issue with the title of the AfD. There is a distinct difference between the pages Special Creation and Special creation. The page that is up for Deletion is Special creation, not Special Creation. One would think that this distinction would not need to be drawn (but that might be my ignorance shining brightly). If Special creation does get deleted, then the redirect for Special Creation will need to be dealt with as a by-product, no.?. TodWulff (talk) 15:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's due to the wikipedia titling convention -- subsequent words are never capitalised unless the topic is a proper noun. However many sources capitalise terms of art, meaning that capitalised/uncapitalised can be useful in getting some idea as to whether they are used as such, or as their simple English meaning. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin will know to deal with redirects to the deleted/retargeted article. No worries. bd2412 T 16:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't aware there were two articles. Borock (talk) 16:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't -- Special Creation redirects to Special creation. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 16:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(undent) Keep This phrase is distinguished from creationism and has particular meaning.--Filll (talk | wpc) 23:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Fill says, this has a special meaning, or rather several very closely related meanings, each of them very important. The article needs to be broadened to include the full range of meanings and views. Possibly it should later be split, with a separate article for special creation of humanity. There are literally thousands of possible sources. Just considering books, of the 2200 in the GBooks search cited right at the top about half will be relevant and usable. WorldCat lists 60 books with the specific phrase in the actual title[28]. It is most definitely not about the mere occurrence of the two words next to each other. DGG ( talk ) 17:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:02, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Start and park

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

Article is about a minor racing strategy used in NASCAR racing. At best it should be a small section on the main article. Frmatt (talk) 05:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sourced to article on the topic in Car and Driver. If they think it's important enough for an article then WP can at least keep this article which is informative to interested persons. I learned something reading it.Borock (talk) 07:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since it doesn't involve strictly NASCAR, but stock car racing in general. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Borock's rationale. I've heard a lot about this term. I expanded the article with some statistics from high quality independent reliable source. Royal broil 11:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Skech

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

New artist article with no signs of notability or reliable sources... CSD tag was removed by new editor (not author), without discussion... fails WP:MUSICBIO... Adolphus79 (talk) 05:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, per general notability guidelines Chzz ► 05:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As of yet the subject fails to meet WP:GNG, maybe in the future when he has received more widespread coverage. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 15:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this rapper. Joe Chill (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But he does meet number 11 of the 'Criteria for musicians and ensembles'Scousedanny (talk) 20:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)),[reply]
- Also quoting that criterion, "if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article". Merge and redirect accordingly. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Can anyone give evidence that "he does meet number 11"? A citation? JamesBWatson (talk) 11:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- - i do understand what your saying, but to be quite honest, i wouldnt know where to begin, i am brand new to this, if anyone could offer any advise or help me out in correcting this article so it is exceptable i would appreciate it greatly, in the meen time, i will try and contact him on his myspace and mention that i have created this article about him, i'll see if he can possibly send me any direct links for press reviews he may have done recently or in the past. (Scousedanny (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    - I've posted the reply on your talk page, Danny. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 23:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nobody has produced any evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (both the redirect and article on his death). No one other then the editor who moved the article proposed to keep it. JForget 00:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Stempien

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

This purported biography contains very little actual biographical information, and a lot on information on her unfortunate death. In my opinion, this article fails WP:BIO in that the published coverage is about the disappearance, rather than Stempien herself.

As to whether the article could be moved to an event based article is another debate, but my feeling is that there is nothing particularly outstanding that would warrant an article on the disappearance. Kevin (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or rename. Not a biography. If there are enough sources to satisfy WP:N/CA, then an event article would be appropriate. Lara 04:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename / delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:BLP1E. Might make a better article re. the event itself but definitely not worthy of a biography - Alison ^❤ 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a biography but an incident. Law_{type! snype?} 07:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E; certainly not worth a biography. I'd disagree with Alison's inclusion of the general WP:BIO rules, though; while the sources discuss the incident, not her, that's perfectly permissible - the "multiple, reliable sources" don't have to have Stempien as a primary target to be acceptable. Unless there's something I'm missing? Ironholds (talk) 10:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources are solely on the event and none are about the person, then the person remains non-notable while the event becomes worthy of an article. Thus, the article should become an event article rather than pose as a biography. Lara 13:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E and do not rename per WP:NOTNEWS. Rd232 ^talk 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP1E - also IMO (in line with Kevin's view) I feel there is not enough reason or sourcing here for an article at this stage.--VirtualSteve ^{need admin support?} 05:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been moved to Death of Lana Stempien --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have moved the article to comply with BLP1E. Coverage of the event by RS spans several years. --Cycl^opia - ^talk 14:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Reading this article, I couldn't help but think it would make a great news story for a tabloid news show but not an encyclopedia. Lo and behold, Dateline NBC is the main source. It fails BLP1E and NOT NEWS. AniMate^draw 20:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The China Study

AfDs for this article:

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

This is not an attack on the topic of the book, there are plenty of credible sources that suggest vegetarianism is a healthy lifestyle choice and it may very well be more healthy than a diet containing a small quantity of meat. With that being said there is no indication that this particular book on the subject is at all notable. The entire article is derived from a primary source; there isn't a single review of the book, not a single newspaper article about it. As a result it doesn't appear to meet the criteria for WP:BOOK and should probably be deleted. Simonm223 (talk) 03:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is just not properly sourced. Amazon.com has the following reviews quoted: (ill just list the sources): The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Dean Ornish, M.D., American Institute for Cancer Research president Marilyn Gentry, John Mackey, CEO, Whole Foods. the study was referred to as the "Grand Prix of epidemiology" by The New York Times. If someone (probably not me right now) can just source these reviews, notability seems clear to me. i agree with how poorly the article is currently sourced. I also dont like how much of the books ideas are reproduced here, and the excessive linking. that can be fixed, and i dont believe the article is unsalvageable, even if its just reduced to a stub.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I may be missing something here, but I have seen this work cited several times, and Google Scholar appears to confirm its notability.--Michig (talk) 07:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to China Project. Stripping out the coatrack, the non-redundant material can easily be accommodated. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the article may need better structuring and sourcing, it nonetheless discusses a significant study (and on which I happen to be skeptical, for what it's worth). Notability is not an issue. Arjuna (talk) 20:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Still no references. Independent notability of the book still not confirmed. Simonm223 (talk) 14:47, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 00:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First Advent

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

Delete: chronically unsourced stub, created ("just off the top of my head" and thus explicit WP:OR) with a built-in {{merge}} tag. Recently-added sole source, to John Beardsley's Biblical Discernment Ministries, is blatantly unreliable WP:SELFPUB. {{find}} reveals almost nothing on the phrase's use as a term of art representing a theological concept (and none of it "significant coverage") rather than a simple adjective-noun combination (i.e. 'First Advent' rather than 'first advent'). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 03:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete clear WP:OR and WP:RS issues. Simonm223 (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not well sourced and confusing as well. Borock (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm scratching my head about this article. It says this is an expression used in Unification Church theology. I am a UC member and I have never heard it used by us in any special way that other Christians do not. Article is unsourced as well. The one source does not say that it is a UC term but just uses it in a normal way. A possible redirect would be to Jesus, unless there is a more specialized article on Jesus' first advent as opposed to his expected Second Advent. Steve Dufour (talk) 09:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Userfy: I don't see what all the rush is about. If you don't want to help me write this article, then move it to my user space, and when I have the time, I'll finish it on my own. --Uncle Ed (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given Ed's already excessive number of user subpages (most of which are quite old and not the subject of continued development) and frequent MfDs of them (most notably the bulk WP:Miscellany for deletion/Ed Poor subpages), I would suggest caution in approving this request for userfication, per WP:SUB#Disallowed uses #3 & WP:WEBHOST. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 02:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with Hrafn (talk · contribs), do not userfy, per above. Cirt (talk) 12:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Needs work, but will lead to a good article - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:39, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:59, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Benjamin Welch

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

Unsourced BLP; fails WP:V, WP:RS and WP:BIO without additional sources being provided. OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 02:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Unnotable theater director. Can't find any reliable sources. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: All I can find is unreliable sources. Joe Chill (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is currently no indication that he is notable. Nothing in the article that asserts notability and no reliable sources discuss him. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 21:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - his dad is notable, but he is not. Crafty (talk) 22:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, due to possible BLP issues and the fact this seems to be a hoax. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish mafia

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

This has no sources and probably contains libelous statements in relation to real people. Grahame (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Grahame (talk) 02:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete In addition to the nominator's statement, which is correct, Wikipedia is not for true crime stories and with no references there is no indication this is a notable gang. For all we know WP:MADEUP could apply. Simonm223 (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. JForget 23:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Robert Entertainment

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

Autobiography of non-notable company... article discussing a number of things that are going to happen in the future, but nothing that has happened yet... other articles created by author are of non-notable clients of this company... fails WP:CORP... Adolphus79 (talk) 02:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This company is not notable - at least, not yet, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. --Wavehunter (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if not speedy, the username that created this is almost the same as the article name. There is also no sources that establish notability. SparksBoy (talk) 05:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significnat coverage for this record label. Joe Chill (talk) 13:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: It's just self-promotion. Eeekster (talk) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything in reliable sources, so I have to suggest deletion. Basket of Puppies 20:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non notable firm; spammer account. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:CORP by a mile. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing on Google except his own sites non notable self promotion. Teapotgeorge^Talk 16:54, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-promotion of a non-notable company. Drmies (talk) 21:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nominator agreed to redirect to The Chariot (band). Ikip (talk) 05:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I collect bust

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

Delete: While The Chariot is notable and easily verifiable (as are the main studio albums), this demo is not mentioned anywhere, was never formally released, and has no reviews. Good luck finding evidence to keep it. -- Noj r (talk) 01:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. — Jake Wartenberg 04:47, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pieter Kooijmans Chair

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

Delete - While Pieter Kooijmans and Jaap de Hoop Scheffer both appear notable, I can find no reliable sources discussing this rotating chair. The only reference provided is a press release from the organization (university) that houses the chair. Since this is in a non-English language speaking country I imagine there may be sources available in other languages, and will happily remove this nomination if they are turned up. But as it stands I have not been able to find any reliable sources. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 22:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Named academic chairs don't normally get significant coverage in independent reliable sources. The people they are named for might, and the faculty members who are appointed to the chairs might, but the chair positions themselves don't. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Named academic chair in major research universities are notable, because they are generally discussed when they are founded, and a successive appointments. We have many such articles--as is not surprising, since merely holding one of these positions is sufficient for notability according to WP:PROF. And this is Leiden, famous for centuries for this particular academic subject. Additional sources are needed, and should be findable. I accept that it is often difficult to document an award of any sort the first time around, just as any new organization/group/product/meme/whatever. DGG ( talk ) 03:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A press release by the Leiden University is a reliable source by definition. Founded in the 16th century, Leiden University is one of the most distinguished universities in the Netherladns and Europe. Per DGG above, as holding this chair is sufficent for personal notability, there remains no question wether the chair itself is articleworthy. hydrox (talk) 17:58, 21 September 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) 00:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leiden University Ikip (talk) 02:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Leiden University --OliverTwisted ^(Talk)(Stuff) 03:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The only rationale for deletion offered by proposer is the lack of reliable sources. However, as noted by hydrox, the press release by the University is a reliable source. Another RS is here; since it does not give additional information beyond the press release, I have not added it as a source to the article. By the reasoning offered by DGG, with which I agree, a named chair is notable by force of WP:PROF. Merging with Leiden University would, moreover, produce a strange result: that article does not single out any of the many prestigious chairs, named or otherwise, at the University, such as the Lorentz Chair or the Cleveringa Chair; only mentioning this one chair there would give it an undue weight. --Lambiam 18:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We have a well-established consensus that holding such a chair is an honor which confers notability, which indicates that the chair itself is a notable honor. Institutional sources describing their own actions in nonpromotional terms are generally accepted as reliable sources. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG. Crafty (talk) 22:41, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ELWO

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

Does not appear notable; indeed, it seems like nothing more than a robot designed by a university/school robotics class. A few mentions in local media as may be expected when university students do something "interesting" (for lack of a better word), but nothing that appears to satisfy significant coverage in WP:RS that would be indicative of notability. Also apparent WP:COI. Contested PROD. --Kinu ^t/_c 17:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on an unrelated note, the scanned newspaper clippings included in the article may be copyvios in themselves and should be dealt with accordingly. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: article-creator, who is only substantial contributor, has blanked the page. I unblanked per drmafd, but the action could be a recognition that the article isn't viable or similar trigger of WP:CSD#G7. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see any specific notability for this school project. Local media cover local human-interest items all the time (there are news cites, but it's not serious in-depth coverage except the local-interest angle as far as I can tell) and I don't see in-depth reporting from "RS from afar" (true uninvolved party). DMacks (talk) 01:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - advertisement; "further reading" all irrelevant to THIS article. --Orange Mike | Talk 21:12, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Can't find any reliable sources that provide significant coverage of this robot. ~~ GB fan ~~ ^talk 22:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:RS WP:N. Crafty (talk) 22:39, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per lack of notability. Such robots are built individually by 10 yrs old in Japan. Anyone who walked in a local school robotic competition there would see dozens of better ones. Materialscientist (talk) 01:57, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Listed for 13 days with no arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Martyn Smith

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

Delete as non-notable. No indication of WP:NOTABILITY in text as it currently stands. No references either, possible vanity page. [email protected] (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep : The article states he won awards and he created a notable UK TV programme (Dragon's Den). However with a (very quick) googling I can't find any source on that. If sources can be found, he's clearly notable. Update: Sources still weak but coming out, since Afd is not cleanup, let's keep and improve it. --Cyclopia (talk) 15:43, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've found and added a source for the BAFTA award, which suggests notability. The "this article is nominated for deletion" header seems not to be on the article and needs to be added.CJPargeter (talk) 14:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The article nomination was incomplete, the article itself was not templated to inform readers of this debate. I've added the template, the debate should be more visible now. Big Bird (talk • contribs) 15:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. [email protected] (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure if a nomination for a BAFTA is enough for WP:CREATIVE. Bearian (talk) 19:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Glen

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

See WP:BLP1E. This person has no historical significance warranting an article, nor are there any truly biographical sources (where he, rather than the one event he gained notoriety for, is the subject of the source). Wikipedia shouldn't be a publisher of true crime accounts. He committed a murder that was briefly the subject of news reports, and that is all. However, Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Delete. Dominic·t 12:18, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:BLP1E. Joe Chill (talk) 14:47, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think so. We don't need articles on every true crime account. BrianY (talk) 18:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:BLP1E. Crafty (talk) 22:38, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is no place for minor murderers, one needs to be quite good even in this category. New seeker (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - fails WP:ONEEVENT for his original murder conviction. His recent media resurrection (for want of a better word) is nothing but a passing mention about him and 50 other criminals, not significant enough to warrant his own article. Giant Snowman 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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