Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 November 14

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 13 November 15 >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted as A7. While the text is actually quite neutral, there is just no claim at all, that this is notable and no sources. SoWhy 22:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mystic Galaxies[edit]

Mystic Galaxies (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No notability, no appearances on Google besides their own website, forums, and self-published sources The359 (talk) 23:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy delete (A7) by Chaser. Non-admin closure. MuZemike (talk) 08:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Buddy Steiner Lawson[edit]

Buddy Steiner Lawson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Prod contested by author. Unsourced, zero Google hits. I wanted to tag this for a speedy, but the (probably fictitious) claims of TV appearances therein could be construed as a tenuous assertion of notability. --Finngall talk 23:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Doesn't exist. Article claims he appeared in season 8, episode 11 of The Bill. Not according to TV.com. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 23:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serban Marin[edit]

Serban Marin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Several reasons for deletion. First, it's an autobiography. Second, the man is not especially notable, with many of his hits appearing on forums and self-published sources. Third, this page too is largely sourced from his homepage and the defunct (and presumably self-published) Crusades Encyclopedia. Fourth, given that he's only published one book and that three others are "in project", it seems he's using Wikipedia for self-promotional purposes. Fifth, his position as a mere department head at the National Archives of Romania does not render him especially notable - if he were head of the archive, maybe, but not just another cog in the machine. Perhaps individually, these might not be strong enough reasons for deletion, but put together, I think they make a compelling case. Biruitorul Talk 23:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • However, it is a strong indicator of non-notability, and non-notability is a good reason for deletion. Why should an encyclopædia have an entry for somebody who can't even get anybody other than him to write a biography of him? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A thought: maybe, rushing to get an entry of a young researcher published is a form of recentism? ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 11:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than enough major publication for notability. His notability is not from the position at the National archives, though a professional position there is equivalent to a professorial appointment at a university & head of a division probably head of a department. . His notability is as a scholar, and shown by his publications. All we need to do to the article is remove the lists of minor publications. We do not delete articles for COI, and if people write too much, we edit the articles. 40 years is a young researcher? 7 books is just becoming notable? One doesnt expect Gbooks to have many 20th c. specialized publicationsin this language , nor G Scholar. their strong anglophone bias is what Wikipedia tries to avoid. DGG (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's only actually written and published one book, not seven. -- Biruitorul Talk 02:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Appears to be nothing more than a list of everything he's written that the public can (supposedly) buy. spider1224 02:37, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, a spam CV. Subject has not swum out of his small pond. No Google News hits, for example. Fee Fi Foe Fum (talk) 04:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. Bearian (talk) 02:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contact high[edit]

Contact high (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article is unsourced, unable to find supporting material using Google search. Article is largely pop-culture references, the term itself appears to be urban legend. Steve CarlsonTalk 22:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Nothing else to say, really.    SIS  23:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Common enough in psychology papers on drug use, e. g. here is Keup, Wolfram (1971) "The Vocabulary of the Drug User and Alcoholic: A Glossary", Substance Use & Misuse, 6, p. 353:"a psychogenic “trip” without taking drugs by being close to somebody while he is on drugs. Incorrectly for the high obtained by inhaling the smoke of other marijuana smokers". I've found several other mentions just from a couple of minutes looking at google scholar, mostly only tangential, as here: [1]. But it's clear that this is an old and well established term for a phenomenon which, real or imaginary, is discussed in scholarly literature. N p holmes (talk) 12:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep well known concept ,sourcable, though some of it may go a bit back in time to when people where just alking about these things 40 years ago. . Medicial literature, psychology, use in the creative arts and autobio. and criticism. Just decelop the article. DGG (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a very known phenomenon that is sourceable. The problems with the article can be addressed with tags, or better yet, edits. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dominik Brendan[edit]

Dominik Brendan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This sixteen-year-old musician doesn't appear to meet WP:MUSIC criteria. Although he lists a discography (beginning when he would have been only nine years old), on his own blog he writes that he hopes to record a CD someday. References to the films in the filmography cannot be found, let alone any references to a Dominik Brendan. A google search finds only MySpace and Blogs. — CactusWriter | needles 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I did find one of the listed films here but he is not listed in the cast. — CactusWriter | needles 22:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I also have attempted to find sources that would help to establish WP:N notability, including searching in Google News archives, and in a library database of newspaper and magazine articles. I found no sources. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 05:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disable job requests while running job pattern[edit]

Disable job requests while running job pattern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unnotable software "job pattern" There are no verifiable sources to be found. Tavix (talk) 22:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak delete. On the one hand, it sounds like legitimate software. On the other hand, there are no sources and it seems to fail WP:V. Also, in parts it seems like a how-to, which has no place in Wikipedia, per WP:NOTHOWTO. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I'm no deletionist, but the only Google hits I got were for copies of this article. --Philcha (talk) 09:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

30350[edit]

30350 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Delete: Unnotable number per WP:NUMBER and an unusable disambiguation per WP:D because it isn't disambiguating anything. Tavix (talk) 22:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply Why? This is NOT disambiguating anything. I think you are confused on what a disambiguation is. The sole purpose of a disambiguation is to redirect a user to an article when there are multiple articles of the same name. There are no articles about "30350" and thus makes the disambig. pointless and unusable. Tavix (talk) 20:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. But this disambiguation page provides two pieces of information regarding the number. Are you suggesting that people searching that number get no result? Ot that nothing should be put there until we get to that year? My conclusion is based on what information being included or excluded makes the encyclopedia better. But I'm willing to consider a reasonable suggestion of what would be better to include on the 30350 page. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only thing this does is give someone a fact that there are two area codes that use the number "30350". There are several sites in the vast world known as the internet that would give somoeone the same information. Wikipedia does not have an article for every area code so keeping it as a disambiguation would be useless. Honestly, I highly doubt anyone will search for 30350 on Wikipedia. If someone doesn't get any results on Wikipedia, they can always move on to Google or Yahoo!. Don't have the idea that Wikipedia needs to have every possible search result. It's just way too unwieldy. Tavix (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, or redirect to Atlanta, Georgia Sandy Springs, Georgia. Many 5-digit numbers are already redirects based on postal codes, so a disambiguation page based on postal codes seems acceptable. But while it seems likely that American cities and regions would be known by their ZIP codes (90210 being probably the most famous example), I'm not sure if the same can be said about French postal codes. So whether this should be a redirect or a disambiguation page depends on whether American ZIP codes are objectively more well-known than French postal codes or if this is just a result of systemic bias. DHowell (talk) 04:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep appropriate functional equivalent of a disam page. We could of course, make two separate pages out of it, one for the zip code & one for the postal code, & have a third p. to be a formal disam p. between them, but I don't think that would make much sense. DGG (talk) 20:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:25, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athena study abroad[edit]

Athena study abroad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Advert for study company. No claims of notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Similar study abroad companies are on Wikipedia. This is to make people aware of the valuable concept of study abroad and global awareness. Many universities promote and work with Athena Study Abroad, and charities receive donations on behalf of the organization, which makes the company notable. Jbenander (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears to be a major conflict of interest here, J Benander is "Vice President of Marketing and Technology" of said company. http://www.athenaabroad.com/about_us/staff.php#john --Oscarthecat (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • See WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTABILITY. The fact that the writer says that this pages is to "make people aware" of a "valuable" concept (i.e. this business) confirms to me that this article is purely intended to promote the organisation. Speedy Delete.
  • Speedy Delete (G11) Nothing of use; all spam. Themfromspace (talk) 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The company was founded because small schools and small school students were often overlooked, and keeping this entry would show that this is not always the case. Would it make a difference to reference articles that featured Athena? (Example articles) As long as Wikipedia approves of other companies in this field that do the exact same thing, I would think it would make sense and be honest to readers to include this submission. Jbenander (talk) 08:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, it doesn't work that way. MuZemike (talk) 08:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Speak for yourself, I consider it very fortunate it works that way. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Referencing articles that feature Athena may make a difference, but it will require a lot more than the odd incidental mention on a college's web page. Have you read WP:NOTABILITY yet? One of the fundamental rules is that Wikipedia only has articles that have already received coverage in other third-party sources. If you don't like those rules, Wikipedia is not the website for you. Otherwise, you might as well complain that Cartoon Network doesn't have enough programs about 13th-century Czech architecture. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 09:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. –Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brainerd Baptist Church[edit]

Brainerd Baptist Church (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

A church. No apparent notability. Oscarthecat (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Google news shows no stories pertinent to the church. Not discussed in third-party sources, so it fails WP:N. Themfromspace (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep as a very large, long established church that has received many mentions in the News ([2]; nearly 100 unique hits in GNews), most is trivial coverage, true, but I actually think that a hundred mentions shows more notability than 2 or 3 large ones. I am currently working on improving the page with citations. Icewedge (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are also a at least a good dozen mentions in Google books ([3]). Icewedge (talk) 04:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing in the article (which appears to be a promotional piece) suggests to me that this church is notable. It was established in 1928, which is not exceptionally old. Broadcasting services on TV and radio is not in any way unusual. The church's very old Waterford crystal chandelier (not mentioned in the article) is possibly the most noteworthy thing about the church, but that by itself would not make the church notable. Additionally, the list of GoogleBooks hits (cited by an earlier commenter) does not include anything that would be considered "nontrivial" coverage. Also, the GoogleNews hits are the garden-variety stuff you could find for most churches: obituaries that identify the deceased as a church member or give the funeral location, listings of Sunday worship schedules, press releases about local teenagers involved in the church's youth programs, etc. --Orlady (talk) 05:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orlady: note, by the way, that a hundred really trivial mentions doesn't make a church (or anything else) notable; after all, consensus has established that not all streets are notable, but I could find tons of trivial references for streets near my home from the newspaper. We need significant coverage that concentrates on the church. Nyttend (talk) 05:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to East Brainerd, Tennessee, assuming that is indeed where it is. This is usually the best solution for churches of only local notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a good idea. Neither the article nor the website say the church is in East Brainerd. (They give the location as Chattanooga. "Brainerd" is a section of Chattanooga. Apparently East Brainerd is east of -- and outside -- the city limits.) --Orlady (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - in going through the google news results, all that can found are mere mentiosn of the church. If there is an article about the church, then I didn't see it. The references in the article itself aren't reliable sources. So at this point, there is simply no coverage that of any significance to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 17:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence seems forthcoming to suggest any notability sufficient to justify inclusion per WP:N. I agree that a merge would be unwise given the uncertain location/link. Plutonium27 (talk) 17:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most Irritating Song of all Time[edit]

Most Irritating Song of all Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Apparently a poll that was once held, somewhere, sometime, without any references. List cruft at best, utterly irrelevant at worst.    SIS  22:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Speedied at 22:03, 14 November 2008, recreated 5 minutes later. Reference now added but not particularly notable IMO. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 22:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - irrelevant per nom. --Oscarthecat (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, there is now a reference to The Sun, a "notable" British newspaper but it is a transient throw away straw poll. For this article to be notable, the poll itself should be notable, not just the newspaper. That means notability needs to be established with references to sources independant of The Sun. SpinningSpark 22:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Strikeout Sister I can now see where you are coming from, the page is not really best suited to an encyclopedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ifraser86 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC) — Ifraser86 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • I'm not saying the information is incorrect. I just don't see why this should be included in an encyclopedia.    SIS  23:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to "It's a Small World" Delete One time unofficial poll, not to mention I've never heard any of these songs in full. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which is a thing to be glad about, I guess.    SIS  23:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another subjective list? No thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No notable and subjetive. The most irritating article of all time? Zero Kitsune (talk) 02:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Using the number of genuine AFD nominations as a measure of how irritated people were by an article, this article falls far short of that accolade. Uncle G (talk) 16:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Macarena (song) Delete subjective. Looks like snow, but I had to get my dig in. ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems like a thinly veiled and thoroughly justified attack on James Blunt, Esquire. Failing significant independent coverage of the topic in reliable sources, this ought to be deleted. the skomorokh 20:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most Irritating Listcruft of all Time (aka delete). McWomble (talk) 04:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's not listcruft because it's not a list (although the article includes the results in question, in list format). It's the name of the actual poll. Tris2000 (talk) 17:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Just some poll. Schuym1 (talk) 17:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: If anything, because of notability. The poll got wide publicity across the world, including India and South Africa. Just type it in Google. Tris2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • A lot of those articles seem to be from blogs, tabloid newspapers and other questionable sources, and the coverage therein is not significant with respect to the poll itself. Check out WP:GNG and WP:RS for the sorts of publicity necessary. Thanks for your research so far, the skomorokh 17:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday wishes in other languages[edit]

Birthday wishes in other languages (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Contested prod. Non encyclopedic list of birthday wishes Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep per WP:SNOW (non-admin closure). I would invite those in the discussion who recommended renaming the article to give the article a new title. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 02:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baby P[edit]

Baby P (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:BIO1E. Media hype. Boshinoi (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The case of Baby P seems to be notable, in the same manner as that of Victoria Climbié. The child involved may have been notable for just one event, as per WP:BIO1E, but the page specifically mentions that the person may have been involved in a 'relatively unimportant crime': the murder of this child certainly isn't unimportant. In addition, regarding the 'media hype', it is perhaps worth saying that people like Madeleine McCann and Natalee Holloway were also associated with single events which probably had even more hype associated with them, and yet these people have their own articles. Andrew (My talk) 21:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week Keep There are occasional cases where authorities overlook something like this it until it ended up in disaster, and the public takes such great interest--as shown by newspaper accounts--that they are notable. But I'd be a little more secure about it if there were stories in other national papers also; the Guardian has a taste for sensationalism. DGG (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think this will become a notable case, maybe something like "2008 investigation into child protection services", for which "Baby P" will be a redirect. For now, I'd let this article develop but there is a case for saying it is a one time event and the article should wait. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 21:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Subject of high-profile controversy about public service provision and child protection. Possibly consider renaming. AlexTiefling (talk) 21:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is quite a large story, but perhaps renaming to something like "Baby P tragedy", with the council failings being the main focus, not a biography. 78.33.73.43 (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Already the subject of massive media coverage, I think there can be little doubt now that this will be comparable to Victoria Climbié. Agree that the focus of the article should be the event, not the person. Oh, and whether or not this is "media hype" is not important. If the mainstream media covers it in depth, it's notable, whether or not they should have been covering it. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 23:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In agreement with the similiar Victoria Klimbé case. This infant's story and the social, and political consequences are themselves notable, as are the national and international press coverage. I would consider re-naming if the story develops, with links to the necessary WikiNews article too doktorb wordsdeeds 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Pease[edit]

Robert Pease (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No evidence of WP:BIO notability. Sources only confirm that this person is a costume designer; no non-trivial coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song)[edit]

Pleased to Meet You (Wolfmother song) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article contains no 'decent' information and the song is hardly notable anyway as it was not released as a single. Andre666 (talk) 20:15, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 04:57, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - sources offered in this discussion establish notability the usual way. WilyD 15:13, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 21:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 J.delanoygabsadds 03:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sir John A. Hicks[edit]

Sir John A. Hicks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article claims:

Sir John A. Hicks (May 30, 1956 – ) is one of the most important and influential economists and investment bankers of the twentieth century. He was knighted in 2004.

I can find no evidence to support any of these claims and know that he in no way could be described as one of the most important and influential economists of the twentieth century(Msrasnw (talk) 20:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

  • Weak delete He does not count as a notable economist. Perhaps he does as a businessman if anyone can find references. I couldn't. But I assume he got knbighted for some reason of some sort, DGG (talk) 21:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom. The See also section seems to have him confused with Sir John Richard Hicks. -- Mwanner | Talk 21:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I am reluctant to show a lack of AGF, but I have to challenge the alleged knighthood. I could not find it in The London Gazette anywhere in 2004. Admittedly it is not the easiest site to search but I tried the site with the aid of Google also (which found Hicks's being knighted all the way back to 1683, but sadly, not this one). If the person is genuinely knighted then a reference to the exact issue of the Gazette should be possible. SpinningSpark 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on all of the information presented here. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless sources backing the article's claims can be found. Edward321 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Google reveals two links to wikipedia, [4] [5], a link to a site which has pulled information off wikipedia [6] and some reference.com links that are not relevant at all to the subject [7] [8] [9] . We have no inkling of any reliable sources. Also, article looks like a suspicious clone of John Hicks (i.e. most influential economists). If this individual was one of the most influential economists, perhaps we'd have a reliable sources such as John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman, etc. Generally, notable economists tend to be well published. Fraud talk to me 03:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- This looks hoaxy. He is claiemd to have eben knighted in 2004, but I have checked both honours lists (see links from honours lists and he does not appear. The article is very hazy about his career. He worked for a bank from age 16 and then for various companies including KOMOSJ, only going aged 40 to London University (college not stated - but it is a series of largely independent colleges) then to another university, presumably for a higher degree until 2002 (age 46). The article was created by a user komosj, who has only edited this aarticle and a related dab article. This suggests a conflect of interest. It is not even a clone of John Hicks, but may be an attempt to freeload on his reputation. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Nomination Withdrawn. Hate to break into your inciteful discussion, but it would be better placed in either WP:VP or in a talk page. Thanks! (non-admin closure) DARTH PANDAduel 21:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Elementary School Musical[edit]

Elementary School Musical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article about the most recent episode of South Park consists solely of the plot summary and some trivial information. There are no references, no notability established and no reason why this episode should have an own article. Recently, several shows have had the episode articles summarized in the season articles and only the most prominent single episodes kept their articles. A good example of a well-written episode article is Trapped in the Closet (South Park). However, not every single episode of every single show needs a separate article on Wikipedia, that's what another wiki is for. Probably you see that I don't focus on the nominated article only but I would like to have some feedback regarding such articles in general. This one is just an example. Thank you for your comments. Tone 19:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a brand new article, give it time. ZZT32 (talk) 20:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Take any of ther article of the season, they are solely plot summaries. Some have references, some not. I am saying some episodes simply do not deserve separate articles. --Tone 20:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is in fact Merge. --Tone 14:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - Most episodes deserve articles. Since this is basically a brand new one, give it some time. Articles can and will develop. If, after a month, the article is untouched, bring it to AfD again. DavidWS (contribs) 21:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Most articles do indeed develop, especially from a popular series like South Park. If this is to go, I would like to see the nominator go through and similarly tag every other non-notable (in their opinion) episode of South Park and every other TV series on Wikipedia. Alastairward (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is sometimes done. The recent series that had had the episodes summarized are for example Stargate and Smallville. Random check, maybe The Arsenal of Freedom. There's a separate wiki for those. --Tone 22:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS by the way. --Tone 22:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vote Change: Keep I would like to formally apologize for my initial vote of the matter. I was stupid and ignorant. I tried to use this vote to reflect my personal sentiment regarding Wikipedia Television articles. Disregarding Wikipedia Policy is not basis for a deletion, and I can now set aside personal feelings and look at this article for what it is. Though I hold the opinion that Wikipedia shouldn't be TV.Com, I know trying to delete one article is stupid. I cannot change Wikipedia Policy, and no matter how much I dislike it, as a wikipedian I must clear my conscience and change my vote from delete to keep. Wikipedia Policy has kept Wikipedia as the largest online encyclopedia and whether I dislike/like it, I will always uphold it and cannot reasonably keep my vote as delete. Bigvinu (talk) 20:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Until the article has enough legs to stand on its own, it should be merged into List of South Park episodes.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 23:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am someone who had read this article and I strongly disagree about his/her/its reason for the episodes to be deleted. The episodes should be summarized if someone does not have the chance to watch the episode. I also believe that Bridon's dad should have his own page. That is why i don't think this article should be deleted.

  • 'Comment The examples listed above are articles which disgrace wp in various ways. The Stargate list appears to be copy paste from a tv guide, as it gives not episode summaries, but teasers; any summary bending with .... is unencyclopedic. A episode summary that says something like "The Atlantis expedition is put on trial" but doesn't give anywhere the result of the trial is unencyclopedic. When NOT says we are Not a program guide this is what it is properly referring to--we tell what the episode is about, and summarize in a paragraph or so what takes place ini it--not give a tag line to encourage people to watch it. The point of an encyclopedia is to provide information, not publicity. The Smallville one has longer entries, but the same problem: "WLex does something unexpected with the unproven antidote." An encyclopedic description prepared from an actual source for the material will say what the expected something is, not leave it as a hook to the potential viewer. " Things go awry when she discovers that her kryptonite-enhanced beauty causes harm to anyone she kisses." A proper summary describes what happens, which is probably the point to the episode. "and Chloe attempts to set the school on fire." does she succeed or not, and how does the episode close? All this is program guide material, not actual description. But in contrast, The Arsenal of Freedom is a very long overdetailed description of each turn in the plot; the corresponding article in MemoryAlpha describes the plot much more clearly (though in similar detail) but also add much more encyclopedic information about the production and other externals. There should be a middle ground, except I very rarely see it. Perhaps if people who know the series would work on these articles, instead of arguing about removing them, we would get somewhere. Either good reasonable size episode articles, or good adequate season summaries: either would do. DGG (talk) 00:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts exactly. What you suggest was done at the Stargate SG-1 series - reasonable plot summaries at the episode list, of those articles that are about specific episodes, two are GA and one FA, the seasons articles are being worked on. An approach that should be applied courageously for other series as well. Lost (TV series) has a great approach, most of the articles are referenced and much more than plot summaries, several FAs and in depth season articles. --Tone 00:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it that people have such a hard time comprehending Notability? Notability is not ARTICLE notability, notability is SUBJECT notability. It doesn't matter HOW GOOD the articles on Lost are, the subject they cover (specific articles) is PRECISELY AS NOTABLE AS A SOUTH PARK EPISODE, and actually much less notable in my opinion, as South Park actually covers topics of general interest. Even if our Einstein article was just a stub, and our Frank Tirnady article was 2,000,000 words long, Enstein would still be MORE NOTABLE than Tirnady. PyroGamer (talk) 20:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I don't understand why this particular episode is less worthy of its own page than any other preceding it. There has been a standard set in terms of giving South Park episodes their own page, and I don't see a reason to change that. Stuartfaz (talk) 03:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Meta:Wiki is not paper. Specifically, "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." -- Masterzora (talk) 05:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, WP:NOT#PAPER also says that, in bold, that This policy is not a free pass for inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Also, there is one of the core criteria in Wikipedia and this is Notability. In any case, some of the people here seem to be missing the point of the nomination. I don't oppose this specific article (which is still bad and IMO should be merged to the season article), I am just demonstrating that several episodes do not pass criteria for separate articles. There were some attempts to get a consensus on this but as far as I know the summarization has been done for a couple of series only. Sometimes, this was pretty radical, for example, see Wikipedia:Pokémon test. --Tone 11:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are absolutely correct in that it's not a free pass for inclusion, and that articles must abide by the content policies. However, nobody has pointed out a single policy that this article violates, so my original statement stands. Further, note that your link, WP:NOT#PAPER references the same essay from which I pulled the quote regarding how there is no reason we shouldn't have an article about every episode of a TV show. -- Masterzora (talk) 22:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep So by deleting this article, you want to set a precedent so every article covering 12 series of South Park gets deleted? Hell, why stop there? Lets start deleting episode articles about Star Trek/X-Files/The Simpsons, et al. If it's the manner in which the article is written, why not ask for it to be re-written? Just because one Wikipedian deems a page irrelevant, doesn't mean others feel the same way about it. This is one very strange deletion request. --Factorylad (talk) 13:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This was not ment as a precedent nomination. I am just trying to point out how the standards should be raised. Check the last season of Lost, every article has much more than a plot summary and trivia. I am not saying every article needs to be deleted, only the bad ones. This is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide. Other wikis are for that. Check a FL, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes. Episodes that have notability asserted (won awards, gained media attention etc.) have separate articles, the others haev the plot summarized and there is a link to wikia where all the details are more than welcome. What I am trying to show is that this is a better encyclopedic approach. --Tone 14:06, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going by that notion, I'm sure there are plenty of unworthy articles in List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes of which every episode has an article. Bear in mind that this article is still in it's infancy. I'm sure articles such as Trapped in the Closet (South Park), which you referred to didn't appear overnight and are the result of ongoing work. --Factorylad (talk) 14:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have probably chosen an older article to demonstrate the point. For that purpose, maybe The Arsenal of Freedom is more illustrative. Most of the articles will never get over the plot summary since there's not much to add as they are just episodes. My proposal is not delete, but Merge. --Tone 14:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point still remains that any action you wish to be taken with this article should be adhered to with similar articles (for example, articles included in List of The Simpsons episodes and List of Family Guy episodes as I referred to). Why stop at television shows? Does Wikipedia really need a single article for every element in the New Order discography? On a separate note, if your suggestion is to merge and not delete, you should consider removing the article for deletion box and replacing it with { {merge} }. --Factorylad (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the notion that hard drive space is cheap, what do we gain from merging into a season summary? Nothing it seems. What do we lose? The extra detail and perhaps the encouragement to go ahead and add to the article. Seeing everything squeezed like this might be off putting to newer editors.
Besides which, this article seems to have been chosen as an example for the nominator's idea of how articles should appear in general, not on the merits of how it might turn out, which seems sort of wrong to me. At the very least, the assertion that "Take any of ther article of the season, they are solely plot summaries" is wrong. What about The China Probrem and the controversy caused by the sight of George Lucas raping Indiana Jones, that seems outside a mere plot summary. Or the production segment of About Last Night.... It doesn't help the nomination that the nominator doesn't seem to have read the other articles from this season. Alastairward (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep South Park being a culturally significant series, popular internationally, even single episodes are notable enough to have their own articles. You want to include only really important subjects, such as countries and human organs, there are literally a million less relevant articles in Wikipedia one should get rid of first. Granted, this might not be the most significant South Park episode in terms of controversial plot elements etc., but it would be near-impossible to agree on which episodes deserve an article of their own, should this one be deleted.--Almost Anonymous (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete of all South Park episode articles. Keep only the main South Park article, the one for the movie, and the list of episodes. Kill all the episode and character articles; none of them are notable in the slightest way, and the South Park Wiki exists for the fans. --Captain Infinity (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Wikipedia is *wikipedia* and trying to imitate every other encyclopedia in the areas they lack compared to Wikipedia is just doing everyone a disservice. If you want to read traditional encyclopedia, please by all means log off and go buy one. The only sensible alternative to Keep is to create a sub-section of wikipedia that's dedicated to hosting this type and other trivia information and in the process of moving the content also create links from the original content, not to some 3rd party site (driving revenue and value away from wikipedia). I think it's reasonable to assume the person who proposed this has a financial motive having noticed people prefer to go to wikipedia for same information that certain commercially natured sites offer.

Notability: 1.(dated) Capable of being noted; noticeable; plain; evident. 2. Worthy of notice; remarkable; memorable; noted or distinguished.

People all over the world see these episodes. Are articles about rare disease that only might occur in US near some old chemical spill area or obscure science and math subjects notable by definition 2 ? I don't think so, yet no one is arguing for their deletion. Clearly the case here is that commercial sites have taken interest in Wikipedia competing with them. Fact is that gamefaqs and so on lack some of the interesting information you have on Wikipedia and they could go down any moment for various reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 6:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Strong Keep Per common sense. 71.64.154.24 (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to LoE / new season article until this episode has (at least) been nominated for an award or has otherwise caused controversy (WP:NOTABILITY), or has been improved to support a spinout per WP:SIZE without violating WP:NOT#PLOT, WP:WAF, WP:RS and WP:OR. Note to nominator: Tagging plot-only articles of notable/popular shows with {{notability}} usually works better - either the articles get improved (great!) or not (at which point there is proof that they aren't getting improved and should be merged/redirected/deleted). Note to SP wikiproject: maybe it's time to reconsider your approach. WP:SIMPSONS and WP:LOST are doling out GAs and FAs at high speed and thus can reasonably assert that they are improving the other articles as well, and WP:STARGATE and User:Bignole with his Smallville articles have stopped adding WP:SEWAGE to the already polluted pond and voluntarily cut back heavily on their in-universe and plot cruft (SG is still in the process, SV has already succeeded). – sgeureka t•c 17:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep per common sense. Jonesy702 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep It has been the accepted standard on Wikipedia to have pages for episodes in series, be it Simpsons, Seinfeld, South Park, whatever. It is shameless that a user would attempt to brute-force his own opinion against the accepted consensus by attacking a single page and causing all this chaos. If you don't think Wikipedia should give television episodes their own pages, then there should be a general talk page to discuss making broad sweeping changes to accepted Wikipedia policy. Removing a single page by brute-forcing an adf would make Wikipedia look dreadfully inconsistent and unpredictable. Users who regularly visit Wikipedia for information on pop culture such as films and television episodes would suddenly be inconvenienced and denied pertinent information because someone had a hissy fit over the existence of an article they didn't happen to like. If any of the other pages stay, then this page stays. For the sake of consistency and common sense: STRONG KEEP. PyroGamer (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, it's an episode of a notable TV show. The episode itself is the primary source for the plot summary. And notability cannot be "established" — it's a subjective opinion. Go write an article on the topic of notability and you might learn something. There is no policy against "trivia" — that's because just about everything on Wikipedia is trivia. You cannot know what an orange tastes like by reading the Orange (fruit) article — it is just a description. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no reason why episodes of notable shows cannot have articles on Wikipedia. No, this is not "what another wiki is for." If you want to make Gil Penchina richer, go ahead and delete the article. But Wikipedia is the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Saying "This is Wikipedia, not TV.com" is irrelevant. This website is obviously en.wikipedia.org, not tv.com — but that doesn't mean this article should be deleted. You might as well say "This is Wikipedia, not IMDb.com" and try to delete every film article. It doesn't logically follow. The nominator has suggested a "merge" so I don't even know why we're here. Please only nominate articles for deletion if you think they should be deleted. AFD is not for discussing merges. So if you want to merge the article and not delete it, taking it to AFD is a waste of volunteer's valuable time. In response to Bigvinu, I don't care what Wikiproject Video Games thinks, or does (and as if they all share one mind). If a TV show already has season pages, great. But that doesn't mean we should delete every episode page on Wikipedia. No article on Wikipedia is "necessary." Tone, you do not understand what Wikipedia:Notability says. It says topics should be notable. This episode is notable. Notability guidelines list evidence that the community considers evidence of notability. But that is not the only evidence of notability. Saying "This is an encyclopedia, not a tv guide" is irrelevant. Like Masterzora said, Meta:Wiki is not paper says "There is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia. Each of the 100+ poker games can have its own page with rules, history, and strategy. Jimbo Wales has agreed: Hard disks are cheap." It's sad that the people making these deletion nominations don't realize they're doing more for Gil Penchina and Jimbo Wales and Angela Beesley than the readers of Wikipedia. --Pixelface (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • After that last entry, when do we remove the AfD box? --Factorylad (talk) 23:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • My interpretation of the GFDFact is that gamefaqs andL license is that text from Wikipedia cannot be moved to Wikia, like Captain would like to, only copied, because the "original document must be made available" and obviously if you delete the users contribution made here then the original is gone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that I've seen many articles deleted a while before they became "notable" and then people being unable to add it back. Therefore I propose the Notability policy to be changed so that article must be atleast one year old before it can be suggested for deletion based on notability. For example. Suppose someone made article about assasination of Obama and you would speedily delete it and then few months later Obama was assasinated. I think the police would be very interested in why was the article detailing the assasination plan deleted as obviously it was notable, just not when the article was created. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.115.125.142 (talk) 01:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Plenty, plenty of articles are less notable/have less claims for notability. Most South Park episodes are already notable by virtue of their existence. 143.89.188.6 (talk) 02:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep - Articles like these make Wikipedia what it is. This latest article on this week's episode of South Park is informative and consistent with the over 150 previous articles like it about past South Park episodes. My jaw dropped when I came in this week to get the info on the latest episode and saw the deletion message. If someone doesn't want these articles then they've got some serious issues with core Wikipedia ideologies -- not just this article. We'd have to go and delete every South Park episode entry, every Star Trek entry, all TV episodes entries. How about we just be happy that people are willing spare their free time to expand Wikipedia to cover all directions of human endeavour whimsical, scientific, cultural, economic and otherwise. If TV episode articles are not your cup of tea then don't view the articles. The articles don't get in your way. JA (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep, why the hell is this episode being singled out? Someone obviously has a bias as there's no continuty between this and other eps. --TheTruthiness (talk) 08:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Ditto to TheTruthiness on the singling out. This is obviously just some who just don't like South Park who want it removed, for example person who said remove all episodes and character pages, are you kidding? Keep the page and stop the growing Wikipedia bias. --Mothball666 (talk) 18:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, I don't get it. Like Mothball666 said, people just want it removed (only who don't like South Park). Its really situation to say "What the hell?!!".. Rogerchocodiles (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)Rogerchocodiles[reply]
  • Keep. All South Park episodes gain enough media attention to classify as notable. There are numerous relevant Google News hits to prove this. I've also added a section on the episode's reception, so it's not just a plot summary anymore. 96T (talk) 19:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. You're trying to tear the building down while it's still being built. All articles have to start off somewhere, and just because it needs improvement does not mean it needs to be immediately deleted. We have plenty of articles lacking in references, more information, and the like, but that does not necessarily mean it merits deleting. —Mizu onna sango15Hello! 20:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. Never get rid of episode articles. Where else would we get episode info? Nowhere! So keep this article. Whoever nominated this made a large mistake.
  • Strong Keep, I just saw this episode and I came here to see what little bits of information and references I missed. When I saw it was up for deletion, I was kind of irked. Wikipedia has always been about information about everything. Start limiting it here, what else would we have to get rid of? seanfury —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Incredibly Strong Keep You're just like the quarter of Americans that thinks there was a conspiracy behind 9/11. This episode is only 5 days old. The article isn't that much older. You cannot delete it. If you want this deleted, you might as well wipe it off Wikipedia itself. I was pleased when Wendy Testaburger got her own article, as she is an important character- she is Stan's girlfriend. If you want this deleted, just delete all the articles on South Park. Then delete important stuff, we might as well delete the articles opposing Robert Mugabe's regime- and Robert Mugabe is the most evil black man ever. Hell, we might as well delete articles on current dictators to keep the dictators happy. Allow the Chinese government to censor Wikipedia to keep the leaders happy. If we want Wikipedia to remain a good source of information, then we cannot delete important stuff. Stuff about episodes. There is stuff to delete, like Wendy's bio on the students thing after expanding her main article, but not articles about major stuff. Sorry I ranted a bit, but that's what I feel. It's like censoring random things: it's unnecessary, unhealthy and completely stupid. nintendomaster3, not user (yet) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.27.174 (talk) 08:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your feedback. I am happy that the responses have been civil though the nomination itself was pretty provocative. I think I have gathered enough opinions now. Since the nomination is losing its point because most of the people is just voting for keep and not suggesting any systematic improvements to the episode articles in general, I feel it is time to withdraw the nomination. I am happy to see that the article has been slightly improved, though it still includes an unreferenced trivia section at the time I am writing this. As DGG mentioned above, there should be a middle way between well-referenced articles that span beyond plot summary and season articles that make an overview. Somehow, if you compare a tv show to a book, episodes are like chapters. The show or the book can notable by itself, but that does not necessarily hold for chapters. Anyway, I think it is more appropriate to continue somewhere else. With this I would like to conclude this debate and ask an uninvolved admin to close the nomination (keep, obviously). Thanks again. --Tone 10:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAIT[edit]

Ok before you end this, think about this: Part of the reason why Wikipedia exist is to provide more insight about topics that expands as an encyclopedia that gives information about every aspect of something. Deleting the article being discussed is going against the Status quo of wikipedia. i have noticed on this page that one person suggested that ALL the episodes should be removed from wikipedia and only keep the main South Park article. But what if someday, someone very new to South Park comes along, reads the main South Park article, and says "hm, i wonder what the episodes of this show is about so i can get an idea of what is satired in South Park." If we remove those articles, that person would be very disappointed because he was unable to read sourced information about the episodes of South Park. He will then look at an unsourced and untrue website about the episode that wont provide the information correctly, and he would be very skeptical of it. One of the reasons why i got into South Park is because of wikipedia. Denying that chance for someone else is selfish. I think Wikipedia needs to be there so people can get the right information, and South Park articles do just that. We already have 12 full seasons of the show in seperate articles. Why not just finish it out till the show ends in 2011? If people think that the article is irrelevent, which its not, simply improve the article so that it is more formal, provide sources for the information, discuss the content before it is added so that people reach a consensus, then lock the article. end of story. --J miester25 (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might also add that this deletion proposal was premature. The episode had barely been out for two days. Expecting the article to be perfect after only two days is unrealistic. I suggest that you wait a lot longer before proposing to delete something like this.--Matt (talk) 16:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I feel I have to add something here. Please, check Free Hat. I could have tagged it because of exactly the same reason - no references and nothing but a detailed plot summary. Anyway, I was not proposing a complete removal of the articles, I just find that a short summary of each episode at the season article would suffice. Like 5 sentences, most episodes could be covered with that. For those that need more, separate articles, sure. So all the relevant info is accesible for those interested and Wikipedia does not turn in a fanpage. --Tone 17:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
J miester25, exactly! I feel bad about the link to Memory-Alpha in the Star Trek episode articles for just that reason. It may be a pretty good fan wiki, but it's not wikipedia and as such information in it goes from the cited to fancruft. SP is a popular series, why not offer viewers the opportunity to read about the series knowing that we've sifted through the rubbish to give them verifiable facts?
I added the reference to the article, with is the episode that is found on SouthParkStudios.com that an adminsitrator in a previous arctile talk page stated that it would verify the claims good enough. I will also remove the Sources Tag. --J miester25 (talk) 22:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. I disagree with the reason for opening this article for deletion, as well as a few of Tone's supplementary arguments.

  • Tone's thought that only the 'well written' articles, or the ones that do more than 'summarize the plot' can be kept, but extras can be cut. Unfortunately, a lot of the better articles became that way through the process of Wikipedia's revisions. Ergo, they are what they are because they weren't deleted at this early stage of the item.
  • Tone weakens his argument by saying 'some' articles are acceptable. Considering that all episodes are of the same duration, judging which ones were monumental (besides the first and last) is strictly up to opinion. On that note, if some are acceptable, all should be acceptable.
  • Of my own personal thoughts, South Park is one of the longest running animated series. On this note, each article on it is suitable, versus brief series with less lingering cultural impact. --SoreThumb (talk) 21:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Answering Tone. Only having a season article does not provide enough insight for each specific episode. Not only does the plot need to be inlcuded, but also the references to pop culture that the specific episode makes. If there is not a seperate article that shows these attributes of a specific episode, there is no way of knowing what is satired in the show and the main South Park article does not hold the water for the entire series, and neither will 15 season articles. ALL 180+ episodes need to have their own specific article. Also, if information is placed on wikipedia, like a plot summary without references as you suggessted, would not be verifiable and follow Wikipedia Standards. By providing a seperate article for each episode would you be able to verify the claims that are brought forth for each episode. --J miester25 (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Slight misunderstanding here, I believe. The problem with references to pop culture as I see in most of the articles is that they are mostly original research. Chech the talkpage of the article in question, there is a debate whether a specific detail is a reference to some show or not. One needs external reference for that, like a magazine review saying "this episode of South Park satirized this and that show". I don't see what you mean with last two sentences here, all should of course be sourced and therefore everything should be easy to check. I remember from one debate that too detailed plot summaries are close to copyright violations but I can't direct you to that debate so I will not go further on this ground. Anyway, the plot of this episode can easily be summarized in something like Guys find out that they know nothing of the new fad, that's causing everyone to sing in a way that resembles High School musical. The most prominent singer is a new guy called Brydon. Stan tries to convince Brydon to play basketball instead but this proves to be hard because of Brydon's singing obsessed father. At the end, Brydon chooses to play basketball. After resisting to follow the fad the guys decide to go along singing but then they realize that everyone is interested in basketball. The reason is that they liked Brydon and not the fad itself. Ok, could be done better but I believe this is perfectly enough for a summary. And again, some episodes require more place because they generated controversy or won awards or were significant in some other way. The rest were just episodes. There is no need to have an article for every episode just because there are articles for some of them. Are we coming any closer here? --Tone 22:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something can be summarized in a few sentences doesn't mean that's the correct way to do it. If you can provide all the information on a subject, why would you go with the bare minimum? Wikipedia is about giving information about everything to everyone, why would you want to limit the topics covered? It makes no sense. seanfury —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC). \[reply]
First of all, cultural references are not original research. We established this with admin. Nightscream. The cultural references that are provided from season 1 to 9 on this website is from DVD commentary that user Alastairward did most of the work on with other users, and provided sources for his inquiry. Though some of them, like Free Hat, that you mentioned, that SHOULD have cultural references to movies such as Star Wars and Indiana Jones, will be provided with sources that come from SouthParkStudios and DVD commentaries. I will begin this construction in Decemeber, since I am currently dealing with school. The seasons afterward, some of the articles, are provided with fact tags that need references when the DVDs come out in the near future. Season 10 and 11 are currently under construction for such reason. Also, if you look at the original Star Trek episode articles, they provide a WHOLE bunch of information that gives a lot of insight of that episode, none of which are original research and provide resources for their inquiry. Also, the summaries on these South Park articles are not mostly short, but that is because the information comes from a primary source such as the DVD commentary and content of the episode. The reason why these are not shortened for the episodes coming out now and the recent past as of 2006, is because the information comes from a primary source: the videos that are posted on SouthParkStudios.com The references that are on these articles come from that primary source, and those that cannot be proven until later are marked with Fact Tags. And like what SineBot said, it does not serve the article justice to simply have a few sentences of it. While summarizing an episode, you need to provide the intro, conflict, rising action, climax, falling action, and conclusion. What you suggessted does not do any of it and it goes against the status quo of episode articles on Wikipedia. Also, this is not a "fan site" as you claimed. The information comes from very direct refernces and proves the claims made to be true. What you suggest does not do that in any way and does not seem right by any means. Secondly, artilces such as Trapped in the Closest has the same plot length as most of the articles of South Park episodes, but provides more reception and more information because it had such a greater impact than other episodes. That is ok. That does not mean you exclude other episodes from being able to show what it is about and you must cleary define it, instead of having a few sentences. And no we are not getting any closer because you cannot realize the REALITY of Wikipedia and what it stands for. Finally, you are completely misunderstanding the issue here. I am not. I know what should happen here, and I know how to handle this right. You apparently do not. --J miester25 (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to ease your tone a little. The interpretations of what should be written in the Wikipedia articles are different and there are many people who agree with you and many who don't. In any case, since you say that you are willing to improve the articles, I am happy to hear that. I think I have already presented all my arguments in the discussion so I will now retire from the debate. Maybe some Wikipedia guidelines need reshuffling but I will not engage in any debate there for some time, maybe later. As I have stated before, this nomination can now be closed. --Tone 08:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It is commonly accepted on Wikipedia for several notable television series to have individual articles for each episode. Wikipedia is not a traditional encyclopedia; it's not intended to be, and that's why there are articles on so many more things than in an encyclopedia like Britannica or World Book. The fact that some episode summaries are copied-and-pasted from a television website is disgraceful, perhaps, but there's nothing keeping you from rewriting the summary yourself, and that's no reason to nominate an article for deletion. The bottom line is that this is just your personal crusade against episode articles, and nominating an individual article for deletion is not going to automatically overturn some precedent. If you really want to mess with the status quo, there would have to be a discussion on changing Wikipedia policy -- because as it is now, there's nothing wrong with having articles for individual "South Park" episodes. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 05:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I disagree with many policies on Wikipedia. But I don't act on my opinions like this. I'll say I don't like them. But I won't go around act in blatant defiance of them while they still stand. I know the rules. They are there for a reason. They keep things stable. A personal vendetta is no reason to try to delete something.Matt (talk) 10:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Just a final comment. episodes are usually not like chapters! Chapters can not stand alone, in any sense whatsoever; they're basically pauses. Episodes in contrast are written to have some degree of internal closure, to be viewable by themselves--you won't know the background, you won't appreciate the motivations, but you will know at least the resolution or deliberate non-resolution of the particular incident. Look at the descriptions--this is almost always the case. In most good books, if you skip a chapter, you usually miss something necessary to understand the action and as things go on, you get more and more confused. Episodes are usually written with enough hooks backwards to explain the continuity. They more resemble & I think derive from the structure of comic books, which is why there is such an easy translation between those media. (There are of course other possibilities--the structure of those 19th century novels published as weekly chapters usually do not stand alone--they are not true episodes. ) The traditional form they most closely resemble is connected short stories. My favorite example is Wodehouse, with stories using the same repeated characters. Thats why we almost never have articles on individual chapters of novels--there are very few where it would make the least sense, even if a particular chapter is famous for its particular artistry or complexity of development. DGG (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 22:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Knight[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Patrick Knight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The subject is not notable per WP:BIO. When this article survived previous AfD last year, contributors insisted the case was notable and the article could be improved. The article is full of unreferenced claims and there is no evidence that this case was ever legally significant. Subject appeared in news articles prior to his execution because of his intent to tell a joke at his execution. No joke was ever told, and the subject only garnered brief publicity, and does not merit an article. Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. —Talmage (talk) 23:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep in spite of the article's numerous issues. While it is undeniable that the Patrick Knight case was newsworthy at the time, the question is really whether the information about the subject is still notable enough to now be worthy of being preserved in an encyclopedia. I'm inclined to say yes, because Knight has been one of the more notorious criminals in the 2000s, if only because of his plan to tell a joke as his last statement. Yes, the article is a mess -- a wealth of unreferenced information that could be original research for all we know, given the fact that there are exactly two sources for the numerous paragraphs. Yes, it is almost told as a narrative -- this version would be better as a chapter in a book rather than an encyclopedia article. But those are things that can be improved, and while the case may not have been legally significant by establishing precedents, it was certainly significant enough to prompt a tremendous amount of coverage in newspapers and on television across the nation and even in other countries. This is not a run-of-the-mill criminal case which will be forgotten right away; it was in the news for well over a year, after all. The "Controversies" section underscores the significance; if we could just get citations for all those quotes the article would be improved greatly. With a lot more references added and significant changes to certain sections to end neutrality disputes, this article could turn out fine. Thus, I say "keep." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would just say that in 16 months, the page hasn't been improved. Most importantly, I think WP:NOT#NEWS and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information very much apply in this case. Talmage (talk) 03:00, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I wasn't around for the first nomination, but if the page hasn't been improved in 16 months then someone should try to improve it by getting some sources. And I will reiterate that the subject of this article was heavily covered for a year and a half, inspiring much controversy. Furthermore, I disagree with you and believe that it is not simply news; therefore neither of those policies apply. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the legal qy is also notable, so this is more than NEWS. There is no deadline in WP for improving articles. DGG (talk) 03:51, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment My main point is that there was no legal controversy, or at least no more than results from any capital case. The sole significance is of a joke that was never told. He was not a notorious criminal. John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, Jeffrey Dahmer, or even Karla Faye Tucker are infamous, but Patrick Knight isn't even in the same league of notability. He's a typical Texas inmate put to death with the exception of brief publicity garnered from a contest to find a joke that was never told. Should there be a Wikipedia page for every executed criminal in Texas? I'm not sure there's enough space on the server for that, considering someone is executed nearly every ten minutes in Texas. Talmage (talk) 05:33, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment No, there should not be an article for every inmate executed in Texas, but that doesn't mean that this one should be deleted. While he was not as notorious as the serial killers you listed, he was certainly notorious enough to generate well over a years' worth of heavy coverage in the media, which eventually sprawled over into the realm of satire. It is one of the most noteworthy executions this decade, and as from an inclusionist perspective I feel this article should not be deleted. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment There was coverage only for a brief period of time. Please cite examples of how this sprawled into the realm of satire. This is documented nowhere on the page, and I can't find any reference to it and can't find any coverage related to this guy except right before and right after his execution, as is typical with all who are put to death in America. Talmage (talk) 04:41, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Unfortunately I am unable to cite any specific examples of its portrayal in satire, although I do recall satirical columns about it. However, I want to reiterate that the case was heavily documented in the news throughout his appeals process, so the coverage is out there. Now, I would like to say that while we both have discussed the subject's notoreity, notoreity is a pretty subject thing, so I think we should leave that out of the rest of this discussion. In addition, I believe that your claim that the case had no legal significance or controversy beyond the typical death penalty case is untrue. The section in this article on lack of mitigation, which you have repeatedly removed, is indeed original research, but it's also what establishes this case as legally significant. If there are indeed third-party sources out there which could provide similar information about the case, it would in my opinion make the case legally significant enough to easily end this debate. Unfortunately that is not the way things are. I would like to offer a suggestion. Perhaps we should move this article so the subject is the case (presumably Knight v. State of Texas or something similar) and not the criminal. Of course, that would depend on the lack of mitigation information, which is likely to stay out of the article as original research until someone can come up with the references to back it up. Regardless, I remain opposed to deletion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak Delete This is an example of recentism and of unfair weight given to people with contemporary media coverage. An attention-seeking murderer might have interested the media for a little while, but the memory will fade in time. On the other hand, I do believe Wikipedia should be comprehensive and the great advantage is that it can include stuff that isn't included in any other encyclopedia. This, however, is pushing it, we need to think about whether anybody not associated with the case will be seeking this information in ten years or so. Attention-seeking criminals are not that uncommon, and neither are people solely on the basis that they got the death penalty. The DominatorTalkEdits 18:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  19:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not news, and while this individual may have been notable if he had followed through with his plan to make a joke, since he didn't, the article is nothing but news. Wikipedia shouldn't have an article for every person executed, only the notable ones, and while this person was in the news a lot, that does NOT mean he is notable enough to warrent a Wikipedia article. Theseeker4 (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I think that if a criminal is in the news across the world for such a long time the person, or at least the case is (I will reiterate my proposal to move rename the article after the case), they become a notable part of the public consciousness. Take, for example, the Scott Petersen case. There wasn't really anything too notable about the case except that it caught national and perhaps international attention and was covered heavily in the media throughout. There is a Wikipedia article on Scott Petersen, in spite of the fact that his trial did not spark an legal controversy and really was not notable except for the fact that it was heavily covered in the media. Petersen is not more notable than Knight; the fact that his inclusion in Wikipedia has never been disputed is a double standard. If the Knight article is deleted, I will nominate the Petersen article for deletion as well on that basis. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • After some quick internet research, I found multiple news results including ones from outside the US and I think it does assert notability. I hate to change my stance so easily, but I just didn't look this one through properly; will change to weak keep, however, the article needs to be completely re-written and more references added (search Google News Archives and use the "NOT" parameter for the word coach). If you want help, I've got nothing much else to do on Wikipedia, so I can help you with this one. And you are going to be accused of WP:POINT if you nominate Scott Petersen for deletion. The DominatorTalkEdits 06:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment Perhaps I would be accused of WP:POINT, but wrongfully so, I think. My goal would not be to make a point; it would be to make sure that articles are not held to different standards unfairly after being nominated for deletion. Surely you would not say that articles should be held to double standards unfairly? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 16:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I see no reason why an encyclopedia, especially a non-paper one, shouldn't preserve information like this. There will be less interest in it as time goes on but a reader ten years from who's researching issues related to the death penalty might come upon a reference to Knight and want to know more. JamesMLane t c 19:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I would disagree. The reason being, Knight's case was not legally significant, and his media attention was solely related to a publicity stunt. In response to a previous point, I don't think this is much of a comparison to Scott Peterson. Peterson's case dominated the news and is therefore culturally significant. Hours of coverage were spent analyzing his case each day on the cable news shows. This is not the case with Knight. He received a few blurbs after announcing his joke contest. Neither his crime, his case, nor his joke contest received significant national coverage. His joke contest was widely reported, but only briefly with little detail. He was not subject to the same type of continuous round-the-clock detailed analysis as Scott Peterson. You will find many Google hits, but most articles are essentially the same syndicated story, stating either his intent to hold a contest, or his failure to follow through during his execution. On the grounds that he attained only minor notoriety for a publicity stunt, I believe this article should be deleted. Furthermore, he never had a household name like Scott Peterson, but is just known as "that murderer who was going to tell a joke". If I mentioned Scott Peterson, most people would know instantly whom I was talking about, but this is not true for Patrick Knight. Talmage (talk) 03:14, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Perhaps Scott Peterson was more of a household name, but the basic facts for both murderers are the same: Each was a murderer, sentenced to death, whose trial, while not legally significant, was heavily covered in the news. The degree to which it was covered is a somewhat subjective decision on your part, Talmage. But I will not actually nominate the Scott Peterson article for deletion because I know that people will cite the same things you did just now as a reason for keeping, and likely accuse me of WP:POINT. It's a shame that a double standard such as that would exist if and when the Patrick Knight article is deleted and the Scott Peterson article stays -- but I'm not here to stir up trouble, just to offer my thoughts. I've presented my explanation of why this article ought to be kept thoroughly, and I truly have no more to say on the subject. Therefore, I will extricate myself from this discussion and leave the rest to other users who wish to post their opinions, and to the administrator who will decide whether or not to delete. I appreciate the civil discussion, everyone. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment: This is wrong. Knight's trial was not heavily covered in the news. Degree is everything and ultimately everything in life except mathematics is subjective. Talmage (talk) 18:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. was deleted by User:Athaenara as Wikipedia:CSD#G7: sole author requested deletion or blanked page. (non-admin closure) DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shells Yonge[edit]

Shells Yonge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is about a rap artist which has no reliable sources to verify the infromation presented, nor establish notability. A search on Google News turned up no relevant results. Not even any event announcements. A Google web search find his myspace page and similar sites, but none that could be considered a reliable source. The article was originally proposed for deletion by another editor but the PROD was removed by the article creator. Tags for references, and notability have been removed by the article creator, but the sole reference provided is not a reliable source, nor am I able to figure out how it even covers the subject of this article. Whpq (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Exchange (crime syndicate)[edit]

The Exchange (crime syndicate) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Completely non-notable fictional group -- minor within the games, wholly insignificant in the real world. Completely unreferenced content. Redirect was undone with no actual contributions to the article; ditto prod very close to expiring. Article, such as it is, is entirely plot summary and cruft. --EEMIV (talk) 18:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Tag as references needed? Everything in nomination is true, except that I'm not sure it's not notable as part of two very popular games. Could any of it be sourced at least to gaming magazines?ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also I found this in the edit summary, "reverting to article, as the redirect target literally does not mention "the exchange" (and didn't when the redirect was put in place, either). Prod it or merge it if you want." So perhaps a good faith merge could have avoided this? ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing to merge/worth merging. --EEMIV (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it even mentioned in the parent article? Are you questioning its existence or whether it's notable enough for its own article? It just seems to me that if whatever relevan information was included in the parent article, at least one editor wouldn't have recreated this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 20:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it's not mentioned in the game articles. The Exchange is a minor bit of "scenery"/a group that background NPCs are members of in both games. --EEMIV (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not important. Keyshours (talk) 19:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect Someone would have to do some miracle sourcing to show that this in notable outside of the game. AniMate 19:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think that, on balance, WP:BLP1E is inapposite to this case because the underlying premise of WP:BLP - avoiding harm to individuals by respecting their privacy - is not implicated here. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa Donahue[edit]

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

Three years on, it is now evident that this one-time winner of Big Brother squarely fails WP:BLP1E. The subject has not had any achievements since the show. The biography contains a paucity of reliably sourced biographical information, which suggests that her notability is not high. Note also that this article has survived deletion when bundled with Eddie McGee; it has also been tagged merger candidate for over a year. Ohconfucius (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Once notable, always notable. Notability does not expire. We don't talk much today about people who were members of the New Jersey legislature in 1922, but we recognize them as notable. -- Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. ṜedMarkViolinistDrop me a line 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Winners of Big Brother (US), per jordan's suggestion, the other winner's articles should be AFD'ed if this one succeeds. Some of the winners might merit their own articles independent from the winners list, other not. (And, as per WP:BLP1E compliance, this article is not a biography but just a mention that she won the contest that year and some circumstances around it, so it needs to be merged somewhere). --Enric Naval (talk) 18:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The winner of each season is notable, and the best justification for that is that it makes sense. I've seen lots of articles get written when its 9th place, or something like that and that clearly doesn't count. . I';m not sure about 2nd and 3rd, but certainly 1st. One achievement at the top level is sufficient for notability. BELPIE applies only when someone is incidentally caught up in something or on the periphery--not the center, not the winner. DGG (talk) 01:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC) DGG (talk) 01:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She's notable because she was the winner. Big Brother is definitely a notable competition, and was a pioneering series in reality tv. 128.118.242.160 (talk) 04:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. She's notable only because she was the winner and for no other reason, hence fails WP:BLP1E. Big Brother is notable but notability is not inherited. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nom is exactly right. Why do we bother having BLP1E if editors are blithely indifferent to its application. Eusebeus (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence of notability other than winning the series, hence fails articles about people notable only for one event. McWomble (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Big Brother 3 (U.S.) seems like the most sensible outcome. -Halo (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. On BLP1E, I think there is a distinction as to whether a person actively worked for the event, or passively was affected by the event. In this case, the subject was a fully willing participant in the show, and won it. There is nothing particularly negative in the article either. The celebrity status (this is a major reality show, on a major network, in a major country), as well as Eastmain's argument is my reason for going with keep on this one. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Where the heck does WP:BLP1E say that the subject has to be an active participant on the event? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I assumed that was right but apparently not. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as this article is sparse and has had ample opportunity to be improved. WikiScrubber (talk) 22:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Once notable, always notable, like being a king or queen of Narnia. In this case it might be being a king or queen of a really dumb show but that doesn't matter. BLP1E is made primarily to protect people who have gotten in the news for a single event. Strict application of BLP1E is thus highly unreasonable when the individual has gone to much effort to be the center of attention. Furthermore, there have been followup sources post the original win that give her continuing notability and thus isn't BLP1E anyways. I'd love if we could delete everything related to so called reality-tv but policies, guidelines and common sense don't let us do so. JoshuaZ (talk) 05:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, following Phil Bridger's cleanup of the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal[edit]

Sayed Hyderali Shihab Thangal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

consted prod Article does not explain notability of the subject and is uncited Oo7565 (talk) 08:59, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Non-notable person. Being the relative of some notable person does not make him notable. Also the article (without citations) claims he has been a judge in the Kerala's muslim community which itself doesn't appear to be a very notable post. - Unpopular Opinion (talk) 12:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - no source for notability.--Boffob (talk) 18:16, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It appears that he's a senior figure in the Indian Union Muslim League, being touted as a potential leader, although why the article creator omitted to say that in favour of listing his relations I'm at a loss to understand. I've added some references to the article and there are more sources available from a Google News Archive search. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein  16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, disguised website ad. NawlinWiki (talk) 12:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master of Badness[edit]

Master of Badness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

WP:OR, WP:DICT.. anything else? -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 15:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Delete This nonsense should have been marked as such ({{db-nonsense}}) and never gotten to the AfD process in the first place. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 15:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. I nominated this for speedy, viewing this as original research, unsourced, and yielding no Google hits, a test page at best. I would have marked it as nonsense, but I know that some would make the literal interpretation that the article is coherent, and thus... JNW (talk) 15:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to drop a speedy too, just couldn't think of a criteria. That article doesn't appear to be a test page (original research, unsourced doesn't fit g2), I don't believe its gibberish either. -Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sotiris Zisimos[edit]

Sotiris Zisimos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable Greek businessman. Article has been tagged for notability and reliable references since Dec 2007 to no avail. It makes no real claims to notabilty, other than "Sotiris is known for...", but then makes no effort to say who he is known by. Article is unreferenced (claimed references are links to tourist accommodation websites with which he may be asociated, but these do not confer any notability, though they may establish that he owns a hotel - not in itself sufficient reason to be in Wikipedia. A Google search returns 10 hits, all Wikipedia or Wiki copies. (I appreciate that a search on Greek Google may be more productive, but don't know Greek.) In summary, it looks like we have a case of Wikipedia being used for advertising or growing a business again. Emeraude (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Young Dracula. Merge here means: Merge everything that can be used, then change page to disambiguation page. SoWhy 22:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Dracula[edit]

Vladimir Dracula (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is the main character in a Children's BBC series. Although that makes him notable enough to mention in some detail in the programme's article (of course), I'm not at all convinced that he is notable enough for his own article. The fact that he is discussed in sufficient depth in the parent article, Young Dracula, the fact that the article is written in a primarily in-universe style, and the fact that an article containing a list of Young Dracula characters just went through an AfD and was deleted, lead me to believe that this article too should be deleted. TalkIslander 14:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. My impression is that the character is covered in the Young Dracula article, and that this is mostly redundant. But perhaps this should become a disambiguation page between Young Dracula, Count Dracula, and Vlad III the Impaler. Someone searching for "Vladimir Dracula" may not be looking for this character specifically. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete content as not suitably notable for an independent article, but per above suggestion this should be converted into a disambiguation page as a very possible search term for someone looking for one of the other versions of the Dracula character (obviously one of the links can point back to the TV series article). 23skidoo (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to dab or redirect per above rationales. -- Mwanner | Talk 18:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Deleted per A9. Skier Dude (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Flavor[edit]

Beyond Flavor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable album by a non-notable group. Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was Keep (non-admin closure) sufficient sources to demonstrate notability have been uncovered, all delete votes were made prior to Michig's presentation of sources. Consensus is that those sources along with the ones in the article demonstrate notability per WP:MUSIC #1. Icewedge (talk) 04:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Agonist[edit]

The Agonist (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:MUSIC. SummerPhD (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft redirect to wiktionary entry. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Omfg[edit]

Omfg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unlikely ever to become much more than an acronym definition. bodnotbod (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, dicdef. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OMG. It's the same meaning, just without the four-letter curse in the middle. – How do you turn this on (talk) 13:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as dicdef. All this is, of course, is a variation of OMG, used by some people who think that it makes them look non-conformist. Not notable. Mandsford (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OMG. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep soft redirect. Until this morning, minutes before this nomination, the article was a soft redirect to the Wiktionary version. This is not really even the proper venue for this discussion, as soft redirects are supposed to be subject to TFD RFD, not AFD, since they are functionally much more redirects than articles. I've restored the soft redirect, since the article had been a soft redirect for many months, and a dictionary definition article for minutes, before this debate started. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I guess. The redirect to OMG is tempting, but a redirect to a dab seems silly (do we add OMFG to the dab?). Another alternative would be to turn it into a dab-- there is Official Meeting Facilities Guide at http://www.omfg.com/ and the Ohio Milling & Farming Group at http://www.omfg.org/. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as soft redirect per TexasAndroid comment below. Changing it to a dab would, of course, have the same effect, but I doubt either of the orgs that bear the initials will ever merit an article. -- Mwanner | Talk 16:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - A few more arguments for keeping this, and keeping it as a WP:Soft redirect. These internet slang terms get continuously recreated as dic defs. Deleting this is not going to prevent that. So deleting this will soon result in the article needing to be salted, which is IMHO a much worse situation that the current. Currently it is watched, and dic defs are generally reverted within hours at worst. And the soft redirect also serves to direct those who search for the term (and there are many) to the proper place for it, on Wiktionary. Without the soft redirect, we are left with a hole that will be repeatedly filled by well-meaning editors until the hole gets WP:SALTed. This is what soft redirects are for, and this is where they are at their most useful. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this survives the deletion, redirect vs soft redirect is more of a debate for the talk page of OMFG. For now I'll just say that I generally do not object to local redirects replacing external soft redirects if a suitable local target can be found. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Empty nose syndrome[edit]

Empty nose syndrome (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

There is very little medical literature that uses the term "Empty nose syndrome" and at this point in time it is quite hard to define as a separate entity with clear symptoms. It relates to a nose crippled by over resection of the nasal turbinates, but the symptoms are so variable and changing from one person to another that it is impossible to really define. It's a bit like putting all the causes of nasal obstruction under one term and calling it - "Blocked nose syndrome". Not very scientific... So - I would like this article to be deleted. I am the original author of this article. My old registration name which I used back then was "Allon a". Many thanks. Rock2000 (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. The amount of references and discussion in journals means this meets WP:GNG. However, the article does contain a certain amount of synthesis which could, and should, be trimmed. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a strange nomination. Per the article, the term was coined by Doctors Kern (of the Mayo Clinic) and Stenquist, and has figured in the title of several journal articles, so calling it "not very scientific" seems doubtful. It is well written and well referenced. The extended section of quotes should be reduced, the forum link removed, and any apparent OR removed, but otherwise it seems like a fine article. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are enough references here to document notability, as Stifle notes. Even if medical literature is limited on the subject, having some reliable medical literature reference it is sufficient, I think, to warrant keeping the article. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Somewhat referenced, well written and notability asserted, meets Wikipedia guidelines. The DominatorTalkEdits 17:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Well written, references, in journals, etc. Meets notability guidelines. 'Nuff said. DavidWS (contribs) 21:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - multiple high quality sources already cited, easily establish notability by the usual criterion. WilyD 23:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject may just possibly be notable, but there is no real indication that nobody except one particular researcher, Houser, uses the term. Are there any references usingthat as the main term for this not from him or his group? If not, is a neologism that didn't catch on. The article is furthermore written as a polemic, and in a style inappropriate and out of place in a general encyclopedia. We should cover science and medicine fully, but this is not reasonable. I am glad the author thought better of it. if kept, which i dont think it should be, it of course can be cut down to size very readily. DGG (talk) 01:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep — this is obviously referenced and verifiable. The reason to delete seems to be based on WP:IDONTKNOWIT and possibly an attempt at disruption, as the user has had a long track record of voting the opposite in so many AFDs. MuZemike (talk) 08:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heading up and barring off[edit]

Heading up and barring off (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Useless article. Delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamc714 (talk • contribs) 2008/11/14 02:22:25

  • Delete - even if the two subjects merit articles, it's obvious that combining them into one article like this isn't the way to go. Mangoe (talk) 14:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Mangoe and due to lack of references. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Sailing, if there's anything here worth merging. -- Mwanner | Talk 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I disagree strongly with the nominator on this one; the article is not useless, and even if it were, useless isn't itself a criteria for deletion. That said, what little purpose this article might serve is already found at Sailing, so a duplicate article is unnecessary. If there's a fork of Sailing, I'd imagine it would be something like Sailing Terms or some such, which would include these two items and others. So, nothing to merge, and this being an unlikely search term (though Heading up and Barring off might not be), I think we can delete this one. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Just like any other major sporting term, these are manuevers used in sailing. Shall we delete Tackle, goal, and Hail Mary from the site as well? I didn't think so... Coastalsteve984 (talk) 00:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whether or not the terms deserve their own articles, combining them into a single composite article name like this is surely wrong. Mangoe (talk) 14:11, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deletion (A7) -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MSB MUSIC[edit]

MSB MUSIC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Hoax article. No article on German Wikipedia for either the label or artist. Google search for the label with its founder/artist (-wikipedia and myspace) returns two hits. Fails WP:V. Prod removed without comment. Sole contributor is single purpose account Msbmusic (talk · contribs) —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 16:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SoWhy 22:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MySpeed[edit]

MySpeed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software; reads much like an advert. Whilst the idea of playback at greater speeds may be notable no notability for this implementation is proved, nor can I find any myself. Blowdart | talk 07:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. While there are 9 references, none appear to be relevant to the topic. Stifle (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The references are relevant to the Background section of the article. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The MySpeed software is new and the only one of its kind at the moment; thus it is hard to get coverage by mainstream online sources. However, MySpeed has been featured in many Blogs recently and was a Featured Download on LifeHacker. LifeHacker is considered notable because it has passed the test for Wikipedia. LifeHacker has also received many accolades from mainstream sources such as Time Magazine, CNET, Wired Magazine, etc. You had removed the section to Variable Speed Playback on the Web, but the New York Times article from 2003 stated Perhaps the most popular is Enounce's 2XAV plug-in. The MySpeed software is an implantation of the same Enounce Time-scale tailor technology for Flash media where this capability did not exist. The New York times has said our previous software at the time could be considered the Most Popular, I would argue that the NYT article is relevant to MySpeed software and does give reliability and notability to this article. Also, Blowdart has said that Variable Speed Playback is notable and the Wikipedia articles Words per minute and Time-compressed speech support this. Shouldn't being the only implementation (for Flash) of a notable technology make this implementation notable. Rosso1876 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Prior to this most recent rewrite, i canvased a myriad of similar pages for software tools: Many of which charge for the product:
cooledit (single outbound link), MindManager, Cooliris, DragonDictate (two external link references), WinZip, RAR, WinRAR
These tools and their pages are useful for users. The submitted page is no different. The current page has a similar link count to legitimate independent third party pages refering to this technology. I have done the homework on this review, I would appreciate a direct response to me over a phone or other medium that points out difference between this new page and the items i have referenced. I have carefully read the pages referenced above which have passed the "standard" and beleive whole heartedly that this page complies with that standard. Thank you for reviewing the submitted page and addressing your concerns within the text or removing the spam label. DonHejna (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. None of the comments so far address my original points about the other software pages listed. I am willing to remove anything that is objectively advertising "jargon" and would welcome edits from you or others but so far no one has made reference to specific statements in the article or changes needed. Given that i reviewed the following product pages and found no discernable difference in "notability" between their products or utilitys and ours I feel i have been give no instructions for how to modify the page and basically been told to go away -a very disappointing user experience with the community:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 15:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately other stuff exists isn't an argument you can use. Nor is notability inherited, so being a replacement for something else that may have been notable isn't enough. Given that you've slipped into language should as "our" and "we" there are now COI concerns as well --Blowdart | talk 21:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that users do not "own" articles. MuZemike (talk) 21:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have reviewed the Other Stuff Exists other stuff exists page and noted "these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes". I find *the* article submitted to fall well within the range of the SIX (6) examples i provided. Statistically that's significant and begs the question what is it about this one of six articles that has offended the editors while the six other articles remain unflagged, unquestioned and contain far less reference material AND exist in the same category in the encyclopedia. If the editors told me, "thank you" we have flagged the six articles referenced i would feel the process was perhaps consistent. Again i await specific recommendations for modification to the current page to bring it into compliance so that it may provide useful information to users of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.200.42 (talk) 22:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The difference is that the six articles you mention are of widely used and notable products. Cooledit has about 12000 mention at Google Scholar, MindManager has a ton of books on how to use it, Cooliris has been all over teh blogs, WinZip... it's Winzip fer chrissakes! -- etc. I'm truly sorry, but you are going to have to come up with a better argument than Other Stuff Exists. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 00:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's look at the facts regarding Cooliris. Mvuijlst cites that it is all over the blogs. I reviewed that entry's history and it was first submitted in Feb 11, 2007. How many blogs was it all over at that time (nearly two years ago when the product hadn't been around for more than a month or two? Likely no where near 12000 mentioned. If all over is the criteria, please provide a number. Again we very likely have more references and more mentions than Cooliris did at the time it was first accepted. The history for Cooliris reads: (cur) (last) 10:56, 11 February 2007 Austinshoemaker (Talk | contribs) (This article had been submitted prematurely. The revision being submitted is factual, balanced, and relevant in the context of web HCI.) and was heavily edited in its first few days by a single advocate. I see no difference between the articles. What is going on here? DonHejna (talk) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • MySpeed also has been in plenty of Blogs lately including LifeHacker as I mentioned above but was told Blogs are not a reliable source and these were removed from the article. I'm sure Bloggers would say differently but that's another debate. However, I'm not trying to make an argument that Other Stuff Exists, but I couldn't let this slip by. I've read the Other Stuff Exists, and the important point is consistency, perhaps we should all try to bring the other articles up to the WP standard. (Revised) Rosso1876 (talk) 19:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hold the phone — The IP must obviously be DonHejna. Please explain. I am surely hoping you plain forgot to login and failed again to sign your comment. Otherwise, there may be problems. If that (i.e. forgetting to log in) is the case, then be advised that you cannot say keep twice in the same discussion. You can discuss all you like, but as mentioned in the template up top, this is not a majority vote. For now, I will assume you made a mistake and striking the second keep. MuZemike (talk) 03:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I believe the above comment was from DonHejna and I'm sure it was just a mistake that he forgot to log in before posting his comment. It's a newness thing and not an attempt to be deceptive.Rosso1876 (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no subterfuge here. I am not familiar with the complexities and protocols of logging in and editing. Apparently i did not log in for one of my comments but it was infact mine. I added the "keep" to my comments in an effort to simplifiy and streamling the discussion points, thinking this would aid anyone reviewing the discussion. I did so after seeing that the editor had placed "delete" and thought the protocol was to identify ones position before each comment.

This process of a some priviledged few, making inconsistent judgements about "notability" smacks of the very thing wikipedia was supposed to be differentiating itself from. Where is the democratic process in the body of knowledge when an earnest effort is met with vague one word indictments rather than suggestions for changes required to bring an article into compliance with a nebulous and inconsistently applied standard. It's like being imprisoned without being told what one did wrong. This whole experience has soured my view of wikipedia and its editors. I would like an editor to explain the appeal and escalation process to me or point me to the protocol. -DonHejna —Preceding unsigned comment added by DonHejna (talk • contribs) 20:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - There is no coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. The sole article is a brief Lifehacker article. The New York Times is not about MySpeed so stretching that out to claim that a NY times article that happens to mention a related product establishes ntoability is tenuous at best. -- Whpq (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nischal (actor)[edit]

Nischal (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Still not notable; prevoius AFD was finished with No Consensus, article is written like an advertisement, possible copyvio, possible hoax, none of the movies he's been in have wiki articles ( i couldn't even find some of them on IMDB), long list of problems. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AFD is here. - -' The Spook (TALK) (Share the Love with Barnstars) 18:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Stifle (talk) 14:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Video Masters TV[edit]

Video Masters TV (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not sure about this - Video Masters TV is a monthly internet show devoted to reviewing classic and modern television shows, video games and movies. History shows one main editor who has made very few edits between April 26, 2008 and September 15, 2008. All related to this article. Soundvisions1 (talk) 05:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I am adding this to the "Television-related deletion discussions" because the article also says "Before the Internet - Video Masters TV actually began in early 1995, as Video Masters." Soundvisions1 (talk) 12:36, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:08, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I smell a WP:COI here. Also, fails WP:RS and WP:N --Numyht (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 16:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Common Grant Application[edit]

Common Grant Application (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No sign of notability apart from press releases in industry publications & most of the article is about why the concept of the company is good, rather than about the company itself. I initially CSD'd this as A7/G11, but decided to restore & bring it to AfD instead.. Versageek 07:25, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, no reliable independent source for notability, also spammy.--Boffob (talk) 15:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! Some of these points were previously discussed with Pedro :  Chat  before the initial posting and are part of Talk:Common Grant Application. It should be noted that the industry articles listed on the page were not the result of any press releases, but in fact were initiated in all cases by the respective authors/editors independently contacting the Common Grant Application. As a question, what additional information about the company do you feel would be helpful? Lulayellowlab (talk) 17:58, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple sources, important project. Probably could find a few dozens o more, but it does not seem necessary. DGG (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 05:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 12:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, references seem to amount to trivial coverage and/or unreliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Misleading title: not about a "common grant application", but rather about an online grant application and management system - i.e. a commercial business offering a programme to generate grant applications. Judging from the titles, the supplied references deal generally with grants. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 15:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dariusz Ratajczak[edit]

Dariusz Ratajczak (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

not notable Xx236 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral - I wouldn't say it's not notable because it's reliably sourced (with multiple cites), but it may fall within WP:NOT#NEWS. So I'll stay neutral for now until better arguments on either side are offered.--Boffob (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliably sourced - maybe, but what is sourced - a possible candidate for local government, author of a booklet printed in 230 copies, a person changing his opinions, a small criminal? There are millions of such people.Xx236 (talk) 14:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete as poorly-sourced, negative BLP. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Sorry, but are we looking at the same article? This is not a speedy and not a poorly sourced article. The article is already properly sourced to reliable sources and there are quite a few more out there. There is plenty of detailed and specific coverage of the subject, which is spread over a considerable period of time, so that certainly is not a WP:NOT#NEWS case. There are even quite a few books that discuss the subject of this article. Several such books are cited in the article, and there are more in the googlebooks search[12]. Definitely passes WP:BIO and the negative info in the article is well-sourced, so I do not see compelling BLP grounds for deleting it. Nsk92 (talk) 04:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nsk92, this seems like a "one event" case, which is why I am recommending deletion. A search for news covering him returns many hits, but primarily related to one event, which calls for deletion based on WP:1E. He does not quality under WP:PROF; a search on a few academic databases and Google Scholar returned almost no hits (when false positives were removed) and no citations.--Eric Yurken (talk) 16:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Err, no. If this is a BLP1E case, then what exactly is the "one event" here? That he is a notable Holocaust denier? That's not an event, but a sign of notability. Moreover, you are quite wrong in saying that BLP1E just calls for deletion. It says: "cover the event not the person", the key word being cover. If there is an alternative name/target for an article that covers/would cover whatever you think is the underlying notable event is here, I'd be perfectly happy to consider it. Nsk92 (talk) 16:32, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In my veiw, the one event in question is one instance of a class of events, namely Holocaust denial. The instance is his Holocaust denial in Poland. (Note: I do find it somewhat surprising that it is a crime in Poland to deny the Holocaust, given the freedom of expression laws in many countries.) But, as Ali G. says, I digest - I hope my point is clearer now. I am, as always, open to more discussion and even to changing my recommendation--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Being a prominent proponent of a particular point of view is by definition, not an event. An event, by definition, is a specific occurrence of something, that takes place within a specific brief period of time, such as a meeting, a battle, a crime, a speech, an athletic competition, etc. A "class of events", especially one that took place and received coverage over extended period of time (in this case years) is most certainly not an event. Otherwise one can easily argue that BLP1E applies just about to anyone: an athlete is notable for, to quote you, a "class of events", related to his/her performance in a particular single sport; a scientist is usually only notable for work in one specific field, and so on. That is not what BLP1E is meant for. Nsk92 (talk) 18:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good point, but look at this: another interesting fact that can add to our discussion, and that does support the WP:1E argument, I think. The article states that he received a low sentenced because “… Ratajczak's self-published book had only 230 copies and that in the second edition and public appearances he criticized the Holocaust denial.” That is, his media coverage does not stem from his maintaining his views over time, like other deniers, but for writing a book with claims that he himself criticized later.--Eric Yurken (talk) 18:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • This is really splitting hairs. It does not matter if the book sold any copies at all, the fact is that is caused a significant public scandal and received a lot of coverage (negative of course, such as this article[13] in a 2000 issue of The Journal for Historical Review, but significant coverage nonetheless). This was followed by his firing, a criminal trial, that also received a great deal of coverage both nationally and internationally, conviction, appeals etc, all coverer over the period of years in both Polish and international media and in various books. With a very great deal of a stretch one could maybe attempt to make an argument that the main notable event here was the initial publication of the book and that everything that followed proceeded from there. Even if that were the case, creating an article about the book rather than the person would not make much sense here. As Ronit Lentin's 2004 book[14] put it: "Finally, Poland has 'achieved' its own incarnation of David Irving: Dariusz Ratajczak (1999) published a book that indirectly denied the Holocaust". Nsk92 (talk) 19:24, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • David Irving and Dariusz Ratajczak, a highly motivated man and a humilated, terrorised person, used by some politicians and journalists. If Ratajczak is Polish Irving, so I'm Polish Pullitzer, becauase I write here.Xx236 (talk) 07:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • And of course he does not qualify under WP:PROF, but he does qualify under WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There's his whole career as an author , not just a single publication. There was one particular notorious one, but this doesn't make it One event . Sufficient references even so, showing the event is important enough. If there is a continuing discussion of it, it doesn' tfit under oneevent. DGG (talk) 16:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An author of a series of booklets, without ISBN numbers. Xx236 (talk) 07:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keepper Nsk92 and DGG. --Crusio (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Nsk92 and DGG. A clear keep by WP:BIO based on sourcing already in article. No article with as much written elsewhere about the topic, see also gnews, gbooks, should be deleted.John Z (talk) 21:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I presume that he is notable, becasue he is notorious for Holocaust denial. Unfortuantely, if it is to be comprehensive WP has to cover some unpleasant subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ratajczak isn't notorious. He admitted he was wrong. unpleasant - what is unpleasant here - the lack of freedom in Poland comparing to the USA?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to Dariusz Ratajczak affair. No reason to argue notability of the scandal. Agree with user Xx236, few self published booklets doesn't make him notable as a person, but the affair obviously is. I refrain from further comment regarding this individual, afraid to be accused again for BLP violation. greg park avenue (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

affair? 230 copies and a humilated man is an affair? Comparable with billions lost by US and European banks?Xx236 (talk) 07:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC) Compare Anne Applebaum article - Pulitzer Prize, a number of books printed in many countries, and the article is shorter than the one about Dariusz Ratajczak. Is this Wikipedia a serious project? Xx236 (talk) 07:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject Holocaust Denial is discussed in this article [15]. A number of notorious deniers are listed there: Ion Coja, Radu Theodoru, Albert Szabo, István Csurka. Strange but noone cares to inform about them. Xx236 (talk) 08:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Cook (actor)[edit]

Harry Cook (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

(Contested prod.) Fails notability guideline at WP:ENTERTAINER - the two film credits listed are yet to be released. In fact, there's not even any evidence that the second has gone into production. A fair bit of the article is copy/pasted from the sources used (mainly his IMDb bio and that published by his agent). Deletion is not cleanup, so I won't elaborate on its reading like a resume, the POV and the desperate need for a copyedit/wikifying. —97198 (talk) 11:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Siege of Gordium[edit]

Siege of Gordium (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I cannot find any sources for this, even looking under the spelling Gordion. Searching the book referenced using Google books gave me nothing either. All I can find is that it was where Alexander and Parmenion met up and seems to have been used as a garrison for a short while. dougweller (talk) 10:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as not notable and unsourced. Author of this article have many dubious edits, of whom are many deleted. --Yopie 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete If it really existed beyond a shadow of a doubt, it would be notable; but the lack of sources and the highly suspicious nature of the author (as noted by Yopie) make deletion a default. Nyttend (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sources. The book, used as a reference in the article, does not mention the siege of Gordium or Gordion either. -- Crowsnest (talk) 16:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like Doug, I've been unable to find any references to a siege or even a battle at Gordium/Gordion, even in the book . Unfortunately this seems to be yet another example of an article where Ariobarza (talk · contribs) has used imagination to stitch together poorly-interpreted snippets from Google Books. It's a classic case of original research by synthesis. See also related AfDs at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Siege of Doriskos and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle of the Tigris, also User:ChrisO/Ancient Persian problems for background. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete verifiability via reliable sources is essential to the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia. It is not a site for people to spin yarns or to create myths or to synthesize history that might have been from snippets and present it as fact. Edison (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This completely fails WP:V. I too have searched independently for sources and simply cannot find reference to any siege conducted by Alexander or his proxies here at all. It does not even seem to be a topic of speculation for historians. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:RS. X MarX the Spot (talk) 07:55, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doug Weller's nomination and Ariobarza's final comment. Mathsci (talk) 09:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I've found a mention in Russian source, A.V. Shishov, 100 Great Military Commanders, Moscow, 2000, p. 40: "Alexander conquered... Phrygia (there he took a strong Persian fortress Gordion") ("Александр покорил... Фригию (в ней он взял сильную персидскую крепость Гордион)". --Brand спойт 12:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Metacomment. It seems to me clear from sources that Alexander took control over Gordium (that's where he cut the Gordian knot). I haven't seen any sources for how he and his army did that (siege, stealth, storm, bribery, threat or any of the numerous other methods for taking control of a city). --Alvestrand (talk) 13:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, even if the siege took place in fact, we now virtually nothing. Apparently Shishov endorsed a speculative claim. --Brand спойт 10:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom & others above. Never heard of it; checked books yesterday and this morning, but ended up empty-handed.

    After taking a look at the general situation, I recommend at the very least to ban Ariobarza from article namespace (main namespace), to spare some knowledgeable editors the time that double-checking his every edit would entail. - In my opinion, using the process of writing Wikipedia articles for teaching basic concepts of research to persons who lack such education/habilities would be too much of a drain on our already very limited resources (particularly in areas like Persian history, where making articles comply with our policies is already time-consuming). Our aim is creating an encyclopedia, not running a school. - Ev (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment: I agree with the above in its entirety. Much as I love the idea of democratic editing, I despair of this place when editors who know what they're doing have to spend 90% of their time clearing up others' poop. And when 70% in turn of that poop remains undetected. Er, where was I? Delete - no sources, as finally but bizarrely admitted by User:Ariobarza (together with strange claims that they somehow did not start this article) --Nickhh (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wow, this is unexpected, Ev I already have things to worry about, please do not make yourself one of them. Please do not be one sided. The sentences I added to this article already existed on Wikipedia's Gordium article. Therefore I did not initially create anything here, if you try to ban me from this topic, your are making an ill fated and innapropriate mistake, that will have Wikipedia consequences. You people can not think outside of the box. Please think clearly before trying to piss me off more. Imagine that ever time you try to assume good faith another smarty comes along and pokes you. Cornerning me just gives evidence to what I have said before about equal representation of editing, and making a POV encyclopaedia is not the way, excluding somewhat unreliable sources is not for us to decide, because there are better encyclopaedia's out there that include all the information. Yet, here information is limited because of certain revisionist policies begun by Wikipedia's new police force. If this is really happening, then God help us all, thank you. Ev, if you want to ban from a certain topic, say it to my face (talk page), not sneak it somewhere on a deletion page, unless you want this to be secret? I would not be surprised if you got this idea from a certain user... So please reconsider, thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza[reply]
Ariobarza, you're not doing yourself any favours with comments like that. I think Ev has a point - you simply don't seem to understand the basics of source-based research. Nobody's saying that's your fault. It's a skill that has to be learned, and maybe you just never learned it? Unfortunately that does put you at a disadvantage here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ariobarza, my comments were rather misplaced, as in principle comments at this venue should focus on each entry's merits, and avoid such digressions. It was only my intention of not becoming directly involved in this whole affaire (and in subsequent discussions that could take place elsehwere), and the fact that ChrisO had already mentioned the general situation above, that led me to state here my opinion on that general situation, "for the record" as it were (so that others can cite it at will).
Far from "keeping my opinion secret by whispering it in an obscure deletion discussion", I expected all the main participants to read it, including you (rather obviously given your level of participation in that discussion).
Now, regarding the "Siege of Gordium" entry (and looking in detail, for absolute clarity), the sentences you added to this article did not already exist on Wikipedia's article on Gordium.
Using one sentence from the article on "Gordium":
The garrison stayed there until the last months of 334, when the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city.
(despite the fact that anonymous Wikipedia entries by themselves are most definitively not reliable sources, but mere guides pointing to certain bibliography)
...you started an entry framed as the "Siege of Gordium" with one sentence (diff.):
The Siege of Gordium , which was part of a low key siege at the city of Gordium in which Alexander the Great captured, and according to myth cut the Gordium Not.
...without having any source that mentioned such thing (that a siege took place, much less that it was "low key"). Not even the sentence from "Gordium" mentioned a siege. It was just a product of your imagination.
The sentence was then further developed into (diff.):
The Siege of Gordium , which was part of an infamous siege at the city of Gordium in which, in the absence ofAlexander the Great, his commander Parmenion captured the city.
...now adding that it was infamous! (in other words, notorious). And, again, without any source whatsoever to back up those claims. And so it remains to this day.
Our policies are clear. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. – The Verifiability policy states that "[i]f no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
If even now you're unable to follow these core policies when dealing with one single sentence taken from an easy-to-check Wikipedia article, I tremble at what could take place with the whole Google Books library at your disposal.
I'm sorry to be blunt, Ariobarza. But please understand that here, inappropriately conducted research implies that other people have to set aside a lot of their time to rectify articles' content, so that they comply with our policies. Ultimately, we're always talking about time... about knowledgeable persons who have to divert their valuable time from other, more productive -and/or enjoyable- occupations. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are saying your sorry, as you won't want topic ban on me? This is what I find funny, The only part I used my imagination on was saying it was a "low key siege," I should have and did say "infamous," because I could not find any sources for it, for example, even ChrisO agreed it should be deleted (he could not find anything either, so he said DELETE like he always does), while I kept an open mind. Anyways, if you check the link here, the only thing I added to the existing sentence was, "it was in Phrygia," this is fact, but it is not sourced. And here it is, others edited this article too, (while) your accusing me of the wrong things here, [16]. Why don't you contact this fellow, the actual creator of this red link, which I made blue, User:Brandmeister, he named it "Siege of Gordium", I read history, and I have never heard of a siege there, except Alexander cutting the Gordian Knot. And according to the most recent comments, I think someone has found this siege to be true, am I right? Don't worry I am improving, this is a old forgotten article.--Ariobarza (talk) 23:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
There's a basic problem with knowledge of English here. "Infamous" does not mean "not famous". Rather it means "famous for reasons that reflect badly on the subject". The other problem is of course that whether Brandmeister or Ariobarza made the first mistake is totally irrelevant to whether or not the article should be deleted; neither person WP:OWNs the article, it's the sources that matter. --Alvestrand (talk) 04:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ariobarza, the general method is incorrect: you come up with a certain text first, and then proceed to search for sources to corroborate it. – You should be doing the exact opposite: first find reliable sources that deal with a certain issue, and only then write a text that accurately reflects what those sources state.
In this particular case, instead of looking for sources, you took "Parmenion captured the city" from one Wikipedia article (in great part copied verbatim from livius.org) and "Siege of Gordium" from a Wikipedia template, and combined both fragments into a novel, entirely imaginary "Parmenion captured the city in a not famous siege", which even includes your own opinion that lack of sources implies little fame. – In fact, it appears that no source mentions how the city was taken, much less a siege or how famous it is. And that is the only relevant issue to consider. The mention of this "siege" will be removed from the template for the very same reason. – Ev (talk) 06:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As yet another unsourced battle article from a contributor that seems to have no desire to learn to contribute well. AfDs are rarely the place to comment on a contributor, but a standing offer to help the creator of this article understand how to write sourced based articles has been accepted and then completely ignored. This certainly isn't the place to debate a topic ban, though floating the idea on a noticeboard or through an RFC/U wouldn't be a bad idea. AniMate 20:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was going to close this debate as delete per WP:SNOW, but then I saw this. Since I have little experience closing AfDs that are more complex than 3 deletes and no keeps, I'm going to defer this to another admin. J.delanoygabsadds 03:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, if it's really necessary for me to say this, considering I was about 5 seconds away from deleting the page, you may treat this as a delete !vote. J.delanoygabsadds 04:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Ariobarza

Factoring out the comments from this single user, and comments on those comments, since they are not strictly statements about whether or not to delete the article. --Alvestrand (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment See people, this is why I have trouble assuming good faith, mostly with the user ChrisO, he is again accusing me of using my imagination. Considering other articles that were deleted, in due time, he will regret his decision. This article already existed in red, before I added sentences to it. So it is not initialy my creation, but I will try to help out by trying to look for sources, then just simply agree to delete it. Either way I am not against or for the deletion of this article. If this was from my imagination, why does it say this in the Gordium article;

    "The (Persian) garrison stayed there until the last months of 334 BCE, when the Macedonian commander Parmenion captured the city. During the winter, his king Alexander the Great joined him, traditionally cutting the Gordian Knot in the palace."

    There is even one reference in this article, why don't you guys check that out. Cheers.--Ariobarza (talk) 18:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobaerza talk[reply]

Comment 'Red' articles don't exist, that's what the red means. Who knows why the Gordium article has that unsourced sentence. You can't use it as a source. And it seems that Crowsness, Chris and I have looked at the book and not found anything to back this up. And you should not be attacking Chris for saying you've used your imagination, a number of other editors have said the same thing, not because of Chris but because that is their own opinion. Unless all those other editors are wrong, you do have a problem, and that isn't a personal attack it is an observation -- we all have various problems. Hopefully you are learning how Wikipedia works, which is quite different from the way you work as a student for instance. dougweller (talk) 19:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The very fact that I might stick up for this article proves that I am not Persian-centric, as I have edited other Greek articles, this is one thing ChrisO has overlooked. And please stop giving the wrong impression by calling my normal responce to ChrisO an attack, Doug you seem to love over exxagerating things lately, please change the tone. There is no reason to be in a defence mode. As I said before, I may or may not be for the deletion of this article. And that I added the sentences from the Gordium article that was already on Wikipedia. Thanks.--Ariobarza (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
  • Final Comment I too have looked for sources, and can not find them, it seems this time you guys are right and that I am right too, because I said I do not have a opinion of FOR or AGAINST the deletion of this article. Whoever added those sentences of the siege, in this (Gordium) article, should walk the plank. Because ChrisO has blindy accused me of using my imagination, (guess this is another thing I will add to list of ChrisO misconducts, which will be published in a book and will be a worldwide best seller, and will bring a revolution of freedom to Wikipedia by studying if the rules can be improved for future generations) of that person [I added what they wrote] to this article, and therefore it turned into blue and came to life. Feel free to delete, it would have been interesting if there was a siege, but guess not, nothing happened at Gordium. Bye.--Ariobarza (talk) 07:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Condemned: Criminal Origins#Characters. MBisanz talk 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serial Killer X[edit]

Serial Killer X (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

The article not only cites no sources, but does not state why the subject is notable outside of the game. — Dædαlus Contribs /Improve 09:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was redirect to Kirby Superstar . MBisanz talk 13:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heavy lobster[edit]

Heavy lobster (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

No significance in the real world. Punkmorten (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mac4Lin[edit]

Mac4Lin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Yet another freeware program without any sign of being relevant or notable. Wikipedia is not a directory of free software. The359 (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minakshi Datta[edit]

Minakshi Datta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable author. (less than 100 hits on Google). Subject is related to several famous writers (her parents and husband are notable), but she is not notable by herself. Fails WP:N. Ragib (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete : per WP:N. Being the daughter or wife of notable persons do not make one notable. --Ragib (talk) 08:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also the subject of a VOA interview [17]. Juzhong (talk) 08:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And so? I can provide a similar link of *me* as the subject of a BBC World Service interview. :) --Ragib (talk) 09:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you wouldn't see fit to mention coverage by a reliable source, something which might inspire other editors to look for further evidence. Juzhong (talk) 09:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just stated that a radio interview does not establish a person's notability. I have been interviewed by BBC world service, as well as several national newspapers, but that does not make me notable. In case of the subject of this article, I have found only 3 or 4 Google hits (the rest are unrelated persons by same name, or wiki mirrors). Not only that... except for the VOA interview, the subject was mentioned in the other instance as one of several attendees who were present in a meeting and read some poems. Once again, being the daughter of or spouse of a notable person doesn't make one notable. Nor does a single interview in VOA or BBC. --Ragib (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, my comment was in response to the claim that, an interview in a media outlet makes a person notable. I just gave a counter example that many people get interviewed by media every day, and that interview alone does not make anyone notable, or serve as the person's proof of notability. --Ragib (talk) 19:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: She is somewhat known among Bengali people, but that's mostly because of her illustrious parents and to some extent due to her husband, who is more well-known. Though she has translated some books and wrote self-help books (search from parabaas.com, a Bengali Webzine), she does not seem to be notable to have a separate article in WP.--GDibyendu (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Essentially fails WP:CREATIVE. She has published multiple books, but they are either translations or non-notable. Her husband's article sufficiently introduces her, which I believe is the limit of her notability. LeaveSleaves talk 14:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arunabha Sengupta[edit]

Arunabha Sengupta (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non notable author. Few Google hits other than Wikipedia mirrors, linkedin/facebook, and links to unrelated persons by the same name. Fails WP:N. Ragib (talk) 08:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Accrisoft[edit]

Accrisoft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software [18] Unpopular Opinion (talk � contribs) 08:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Total Annihilation: Kingdoms. MBisanz talk 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms[edit]

List of places in Total Annihilation: Kingdoms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails notability. Anything else?. Hmm.... SkyWalker (talk) 08:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Total Annihilation. MBisanz talk 13:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards received by Total Annihilation[edit]

List of awards received by Total Annihilation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

It is wonderful that it has won so many awards but i don't think this deserves another articles. Iam not sure which policy it violates but there are so many games that won so many awards but does not have an article. SkyWalker (talk) 07:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. SkyWalker (talk) 08:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Total Annihilation. Awards won by a game, even a game as notable as this, does not warrant require its own article. Rilak (talk) 10:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The parent article should include a section describing the awards from the more notable publications (which it does already), and a bit of prose about what they had to say (which it doesn't). This article is both largely unreferenced and indiscriminate, so should be simply deleted without merging. Marasmusine (talk) 10:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The parent article only mentions Gamespot and Gamespy. However, the world does not revolve around Gamespot or Gamespy. To sufficiently demonstrate how Total Annihilation is recognized internationally, I think it is necessary to mention awards won by any notable publication. The content is unsourced now, but it is no reason for deletion as it could be easily verified. Rilak (talk) 05:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, expand the critical reception section to mention awards given by the most notable paper and online magazines. We don't need to go into accolades given by borderline notable-publications, or self-published websites (Game Briefs, for example.) Marasmusine (talk) 12:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Product Engine[edit]

The Product Engine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Company is not notable and article reads like an advertisement. "References" do not actual document anything about The Product Engine -- article may only exist for SEO for The Product Engine's site. 10kilometers (talk) 07:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per G7 by Athaenara. (non-admin closure) MrKIA11 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bridal Jitters[edit]

Bridal Jitters (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails WP:FILM. A Google search for this movie returns very few results, most of which are about a book published in 2005, not a short film released in 2008. A Google News Archive search returns unrelated results. The IMDb entry for one of the leading actresses, Nicole Brunner, doesn't even mention this film. Furthermore, the two directors of this film have red links. The IMDb search for the director Michael Hector returns no results. The IMDb search for the second director, John Hale, returns twelve results, but I don't know which John Hale from the IMDb search is related to the movie. This film is either non-notable or a hoax. Cunard (talk) 07:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Here's the text which the creator Lonedale (talk · contribs) placed on this article after s/he removed the prod I placed on it:
  • NOTE TO EDITOR SUGGESTING DELETION OF THIS ARTICLE. I have written this short article in response to many phone calls and e-mails asking about this unusual project, which was undertaken to illustrate a new approach in filmmaking. We have gathered a group of talented actors who have had limited opportunities to promote their careers, and a group of individuals who have the technical knowledge and equipment for making movies that meet professional standards, to produce a short film of exceptional quality that is not motivated or influenced by commercial interests. Such privately-made and privately-financed films can provide entertainment and public education on a variety of subjects at a very low cost, relative to commercial productions. For this reason, we anticipate that these kinds of films will be welcomed by future video distributors, who will need less expensive media to satisfy their ever growing audiences. Thank you for considering this request to let the article remain on Wikipedia.

Cunard (talk) 07:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 12:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A google search for the film's title and "John Hale" returns just three hits, one of which is Wikipedia [19]. A search for "Bridal Jitters" & "Nicole Brunner" gets just two hits from Wikipedia [20]. The source is apparently the film's producer, which would make the artilce blatant original research, and I don't see any evidence that this film is an "unusual project... which was undertaken to illustrate a new approach in filmmaking". Either non-notable or a hoax, but either way the article should go. PC78 (talk) 12:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per general notability guidelines for films. Stifle (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks independant sources, lacks notability. Edward321 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I appreciate the author's intent, but Wikipedia isn't the place for initial promotion of anything, really. When buzz starts about this project, and there are reliable sources to document its notability, then an article might be appropriate. As it stands, though, the article is premature. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 16:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy delete I added a speedy tag to article as per author replacing content with a request to delete, added db-blanked tag. Theseeker4 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While I understand the nominator's concerns, the debate here is what to qualify as significant coverage. The consensus here is that the sources, including the one about the subject being the youngest presenter on MTV ever, to be significant enough. WP:N does not specify significance in detail, so there is a grey area in which it is open to debate whether or not coverage is significant. Here consensus is to regard the sources as significant enough, resulting in a keep-close. Regards SoWhy 11:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Danino-Holt[edit]

Jason Danino-Holt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to pass notability. Book search turns up nothing, news search only turns up a couple hits, all of which are mentions in passing, not "significant coverage". And even a web search only turns up 102 hits, many of which are WP copies. SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point out that none of the sources mentioned here, and even in the article, and even in the Google searches - none of them actually satisfy Notability. They are not "significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject". The esctoday.com link is barely a paragraph, the mtv.tv article is four short paragraphs, and the ynetnews comes close to actually being a significant source. To whoever closes this AfD, note that so far the !votes haven't had any weight behind them and don't actually address the issue, which is that Danino-Holt fails WP:N. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Smith (film maker)[edit]

Martin Smith (film maker) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

nn person unreferenced, can't support a standalone article contested prod prod removed without a reason Oo7565 (talk) 05:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 WP:SNOW. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon biology[edit]

Pokemon biology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Bizarre, in-universe or just plain weird ramblings about Pokemon. I tried several CSDs, but wasn't sure it met any of them, plus IPs removed them. Don't really know what to do with it, but I know it shouldn't stay. gnfnrf (talk) 04:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - it's in-universe or original research, or private musings, or something like that. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete — Ugh. MuZemike (talk) 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Articles like this are why the academics can't stand us. Please, if you write an article, make sure more than a few people (aka not your friends or Pokemon chat room chums) care about it. Nate • (chatter) 06:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
General interest or disinterest are no reasons for keeping/deleting an article. ~ | twsx | talkcont | ~ 12:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Made up. Unpopular Opinion (talk · contribs) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Appears to be original research expanded out of various Pokemon games. Although items like "protein" and "carbos" appear there, they are not listed as "nutrition". Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete - Seriously? An entire article on fictional critters? :O Rilak (talk) 10:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:FICT, element of fiction with no reliable independent source to establish notability outside of the Pokémon universe.--Boffob (talk) 13:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama[edit]

List of notable distant cousins of Barack Obama (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

President Obama, like all humans, has millions of distant cousins. The recent American interest in geneology has enabled us to research our family trees and discover hitherto unknown relationships with people we have never met. President Obama is notable, the "cousins" listed on the page are also notable, the relationships between them are not notable; except maybe as trivia items in an individual bio. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please keep. (!Vote subsequently struck; see waay down page.) Whereas the portion of Americans who'd be found to be nth-cousins (nth-times removed) from any one of all the American president surely approaches 100% the greater the value assigned to n (of course!); still, the fact is that the actual percentage of folks as close as third cousins (three-times removed) from the one President Harry Solomon-or-Shippe Truman -- as Barack indeed is! -- remains rather small and the article in question functions rather as a subarticle to the President-elect's Wiki-biography.   Justmeherenow (  ) 04:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Presidents Truman and Obama are related could be mentioned in their articles without a need for this one. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but say we add that Barack descends from French Huguenot-and-American colonist Mareen DuVal, as does Robert Duvall, and begin to add other notable names to the list and lo and behold what we end up with is -- a list: one which might not be appropriate for a sub-section at Obama's main bio due to weight concerns.   Justmeherenow (  ) 04:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The same thing could be said about anyone. Is there a special reason that a list of distant cousins should be listed for President Obama? Steve Dufour (talk) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia:General notability guideline: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article."   Justmeherenow (  ) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:IINFO and things like that. You don't get more loosely associated and hardly verifiable than "distant cousins".--Boffob (talk) 04:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the comment "hardly verifiable": Geneology is a social science. The article alludes to instances where a relationship is not yet distinctly verifiable by geneologists, such as in the case of Bessie Wallis Warfield.   Justmeherenow (  ) 05:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:IINFO. So Obama is the tenth cousin, once removed of George W. Bush? You flat out cannot get more indiscriminate and trivial than that. No offence, Justmeherenow, but I simply do not see the relevance, importance or notability of this list. Resolute 06:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to say: "Since Barack inherited half of Ann Dunham's genes; and Ann as likely as not inherited as much as one-over-two-to-the-sixth-power of Samuel Dunham's genes and since Samuel as likely as not inherited perhaps one-over-two-to-the-fifth power of Samuel Hinckley's genes -- which means that Obama inherited less than one of Samuel Hinckley's about tweny-five thousand genes -- and since George W. Bush likewise inherited less than one gene from Samuel Hinckley, then the degree to which President Bush and President-elect Obama are related to each other wouldn't be particularly notable"?   Justmeherenow (  ) 07:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that if you have to say that, you are spending more time searching for notability than finding it. Resolute 16:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are editing decisions to be made -- eg whether to delete claimed relationships and keep only verified ones. (OK and my tongue-in-cheek use of "half-score-plus-one," lol.) But do notice that I've now just referenced in the article some notable commentary by the New York Times science writer, who pointed out that a person is as likely as not to be as related to many of the individuals gathered in a crowd on Times Square as that person is to his-or-her all-of-eleventh cousin (the type of cousin George W. Bush is of Obama's).   Justmeherenow (  ) 16:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It is valuable to be reminded that we are all members of one human family, and even these tenuous relationships help bring that home. That is particularly true when the subject represents such a bridge between major strands of the human family as does Obama, and is a prominent figure who is likely to attract attention to the subject. 76.232.63.68 (talk) 13:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I actually think that the present public interest in the Obama family tree could be mentioned somewhere in the articles on geneology. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as it were, I've also now Wiki-contributed a subsection called "More distant genealogical relationships" at the Obama family article:

[See also: List of United States Presidents by genealogical relationship.]

Barack Obama's distant cousins include the multitude of descendants of his maternal ancestors from all along the early-American Atlantic seaboard as well as Kenyan relations belonging to the Luo tribe, many descending from a 17th century ancestor named Owiny.[21][22] For example, George W. Bush, the current U.S. president, is the eleventh cousin of Barack Obama.[23] The New York Times science writer Nicholas Wade has written that the cumulative factor of generations leading back to Obama's and Bush's common progenitor, Samuel Hinckley, means that the U.S. President and the President-elect would each likely share less than one gene (out of the 25,000 or so genes in the human genome) with their distant forebear, and that the chance both men inherited the very same gene is "vanishingly small."[24]

  Justmeherenow (  ) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, just a list of indiscriminate information.  Esradekan Gibb  "Talk" 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Family of Barack Obama, since it is his family, and we already have an article on his family. 76.66.198.46 (talk) 04:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete That you can find other famous people related to the President Elect is the genealogical equivalent of Six Degrees of Separation. As Truman Capote found with his parlor game regarding chains of famous people who had sex, it makes for curious conversation, but we don't need a page presenting such trivial connections. It is a sociological and genealogical truism that if you pick some particular prominent American who has ancestors in the country before 1800, they are likely to be related to other prominent American(s). It says something about the country that such generic connections exist. It says nothing about the specific individuals involved. We learn nothing more about Obama as a person or politician by knowing that he had an ancestor living in the 17th century who is also the ancestor of other people. Whom those particular people happen to be is nothing but coincidence. People are related, so what. Agricolae (talk) 04:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Adamc714 (talk) 08:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obscure genealogical connections are unencyclopaedic trivia not important to our understanding of the man. The media talking about something in their desperation to find new stuff does not make something notable. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete ASAP. It's full of wp:or, unconfirmed entrys and BLP vios. Just took some out. If I keep going, (also taking too far related cousins out), there will be less than a stub left. --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 15:08, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's no need to play Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon with notable people's families. --GoodDamon 15:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong delete as stated when this was removed from the Family of Barack Obama page these happen-stance relations are neither new nor note-worthy as they are run every election cycle (and seem to regurgitate the same people). The source of Odinga dosent even link to Barack Obama but based on word of mouth only.Sourcechecker419 (talk) 17:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a WP:IINFO violation. -- Biruitorul Talk 17:56, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 21:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If we stipulate that an average person has three children, and no one intermarries with "relatives", then that means Obama (and every person) has around 177,147 "10th cousins". If you add the "N-times removed" the number gets much larger. This could be an unwieldy list :-). LotLE×talk 21:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:IINFO Brothejr (talk) 22:32, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge even though I am an ardent defender of lists on Wikipedia. The phrase "distant cousins" is incredibly vague; every single notable person that doesn't have a closer relationship with Obama is a distant cousin, and given enough time and research those relationships may very well be verifiable. I don't see how this fulfills the criteria laid out at WP:LISTS and WP:CLN. --otherlleft (talk) 03:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comments on my change of mind are below.--otherlleft (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Taken back a few million generations, my dog is my distant cousin. bd2412 T 07:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete Random collection of arbitrarily selected facts. --Pretty Green (talk) 14:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A cobbled-together random list of unimportant trivia. Quite possibly the worst Wikipedia article I've ever seen. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I AfDed it but actually I have seen worse. :-) Steve Dufour (talk) 05:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • blank/redirect but keep edit history. A brief list of those mentioned in major media can be added to Obama family. Fwiiw, the criterion of has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, is clearly met in this case. --dab (𒁳) 19:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Obama family in case anyone searches for this. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please keep. Bloodline still plays an important part in society, especially to the elite who believe that they have superior genetics to the common people. Freemasons also highly regard bloodline. It is often noted on Wikipedia which religious, corporate and political organizations that a person belongs to, as well as ethnic background and nationality. I see no reason to turn a blind eye to blood lineage. Not only does this subject interest people, but several mainstream sources felt it important enough to print or broadcast. Realistically the odds of being fifth cousins with Obama are extremely slight, and when you find out how many individuals within that field alone either happen to find themselves in positions of political power, corporate success or famous in highly competitive fields of talent, how could you say that it is unimportant?
Let's do the math. Let's presume that each couple in a certain bloodline has three offspring (that's being generous.) Three siblings would therefore have three cousins from each of the two aunts/uncles from either side of one parent's family (as their father would have been one of three siblings, etc.) All four sets of first cousins would total 12. To reach the category of second cousin, you have to go back a step before the hypothetical parents, to their own aunts and uncles (again two siblings each, minus themselves.) This would total 36 second cousins to the three hypothetical offspring. To go back again for third cousins, we can multiply by three: 108. 4th cousins: 324. 5th cousins: 972. 6th cousins: 2916. 7th cousins: 8748. From there it escalates into higher numbers. Keep in mind, this is while presuming that every couple in this hypothetical bloodline has three offspring, and that they do not interbreed (which elite families have been known to do.)
Your arithmetic is faulty. If 3 is the average number of kids (it could be argued that in an expanding society like America, the number of kids surviving to produce kids themselves may be higher), each of my grandparents has 9 grandchildren, but you have to deduct three (that is me and my two brothsisters). So I have 6 times two (two grandparent families involved) equals twelve cousins (I actually have twenty-five, by the way). One generation before that, each of my great-grandparents has 27 great-grandchildren, again deduct three, equals 24. 24 times 4 makes 96 cousins (I have never calculated my own total, but it must be close to 300). Granted, we should logically deduct from the 96 the 12 first cousins we found earlier, but this still leaves us 84, which is more double than the 36 you "found" and which explains why many people do not know their second cousins. Next generation: (81-3)*8=624, but we got to deduct 96 (84 second cousins, 12 first cousins). Leaves 528 , five times what you found. With fifth cousins you get into the twenty thousand range. If you do not trust my math, have a look at the end conclusion of one of the major sources uesd by the article: "With ancestry like the Presidents Bush in New England, the mid-Atlantic states, and the South, Senator Obama is certainly related to millions of contemporary Americans – perhaps even a significant percentage of the population." ([25]). In fact, one of the most credible sources used in the article is actually saying it is "not such a big deal"!--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 12:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To find out that within this family, at such close quarters as to be 5th cousins, include many of the most powerful and famous celebrities of our time, is rather remarkable. Also included in these blood connections are Canadian celebrities Celine Deon and Alanis Morissette, and deceased British royal Princess Diana. Bear in mind, it not only matters for how these figures are related to Obama, but how they are all genetically interrelated. What this poses is not necessary smoke for conspiracy suspicions or simply high society politics, but the question of genetic superiority as well. I don't think that anyone is interested in pointing this subject in any of these directions per say; simply to show the facts which have been proven and publically accepted. Not every person here might share an interest in this particular subject, but so is this true of virtually any subject. My argument is that the bloodline connections are by themselves remarkable, and of great interest to any number of people researching this or related fields of study (pardon the pun.) Neurolanis (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The thing is, everyone has such links. Every single man, woman, and child on the planet can be traced by blood relation to someone important, and through them to every other important person that person is linked to. Sure, Obama might be related to Brad Pit. But for every Obama who is, there are thousands of Joe Schmo nobodies who are, too. I'll bet you dollars to donuts that I am related just as closely to as many famous people as Barack Obama is. There are certainly a few exceptions where close relatives are all famous, like the Osmonds, the Baldwins (lord knows we have too many Baldwins), etc., but those tend to be more along the lines of family trades being passed down from generation to generation). --GoodDamon 22:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's an exaggeration. We all connect far enough back, yes. Many of us have 10th cousins who are significant, yes. But this issue shows many, many persons of significance who are all interrelated beneath that degree. Some may be connected at an insignificant distance, but many are 5th or 7th cousins. That's significant. Neurolanis (talk) 23:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But it isn't an exaggeration. Any two people with old New England ancestry have (by my experience) about a 1 in 3 chance of being related. That means any one person is going to be related to about 1/3 of the people of notoriety with such ancestry. You would be hard-pressed to find anyone with New England ancestry who isn't related to famous people. With French-Canadian ancestry, the chances are even higher (the entire population descends from a small number of founders). The other day, just to see, I took a perfectly average person whose pedigree I happened to have access to and they were related to the Bushs, Palin and Biden rather closely (closer than Bush/Obama), and related to Obama more distantly, with no McCain link at all. They also link to various people in Hollywood, etc. They are also indigent, of below average intelligence, and completely unmotivated. There is no genetic relevance here. Just sociology and curiosity and Kevin Bacon. You can find these things for anyone whose pedigree has been traced far enough back, and it has no significance whatsoever. It is coincidence. It tells you something about American society. It tells you nothing whatsoever about Obama that is worth knowing. Agricolae (talk) 01:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an (allegedly historically accurate) novel. (For example see here.) Just a short list. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 00:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That only demonstrates the importance of professional genealogy. Neurolanis (talk) 00:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Roots covers one individual's direct ancestry, through one parent. This doesn't even compare. --GoodDamon 00:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be very interested to see (on my talk page, say) proper documentation for a familial link between Diana Spencer and Barack Obama. But while I may have a hobbyist interest in such links, both 'notable' and 'distant cousin' in this article's scope are so general as to make it indiscriminate. The lack of proper sourcing for its claims merely compounds the problem. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Totally delete. Eleventh cousin? Most of us are probably more closely related to Darwin. Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As I said before, one of the best sources for the article is actually saying that it is not such a big deal: Obama is related to millions of contemporary Americans, and if you include 11th cousins this will be a never ending list. Totally unencyclopaedic. Yes, Wikipedia mentions that T Roosevelt and FD Roosevelt are fifth cousins (note the odds for 5th cousins above), but that is because they happen to share the same un-English family name, and whether they are related or not is a question that is often debated in the general public. I do not really know how much of this Cousins of Obama article belongs in the Family of Obama article - if one particular relationship is discussed (rather than just plain listed) in an article in a serious newspaper, then it would be OK, I guess, reputable and all that. Of course, Obama and Truman seem to be a relatively close cousins (we are talking +- 10,000 possible contemporary relatives there, versus hundreds of thousands for LB Johnson and millions for the Bush family). It is not clear from the sources in the articlehow close Madison and Cheney are, but we know Obama himself once mentioned his common ancestry with Cheney. So, contrary to what PhGustaf asserted, I suppose the Truman connection is OK for the Family of Barack Obama article, with Cheney doubtful.--Paul Pieniezny (talk) 13:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Academic commentators that argue the various lines of the above discussion could certainly have their beliefs mentioned in the article. (As it is, it will be interesting to see if the administrator who closes is brave enough to follow Wikipedia's guidelines or else bows to what's mostly an issue of predominant tastes, since this page is a classic example of Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT#I don't like it versus Wikipedia's general notability guideline.) Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 02:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Er, no, those who have voiced an opinion to delete have cited policy such as WP:IINFO, WP:LC, and so on. Mainstream media's mention of Obama and cousins satisfies, at best, the requirements of reliable sourcing, if it were to remain an article. It does not meet notability concerns in the slightest. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment about merging - As I mentioned above, I like lists and think that appropriately-defined lists belong in Wikipedia. I can't wrap my mind around a way to establish criteria for this list that wouldn't permit it to be a list of every notable person ever. That's not to say that there isn't some interest in the subject of distant relations to this particular individual, and that relations to other notable individuals might not gain such notability in the future; I just don't know how to realistically limit a list that any hardworking genealogist could expand ad infinitum, which is what I think the arguments about indiscriminate information are getting at. The specific distant relations mentioned, and the debate about whether or not anyone should care, are notable enough to be included in the Family of Barack Obama article without a doubt. --otherlleft (talk) 13:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. So I guess I change my keep !vote above (when my signature was shorter) to merge, per Otherlleft. Just tips me hat but then 〜on thoght bows deeply 03:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki[edit]

The webcomic award this webcomic won is not a notable, independent award. Plus there are no other sources that describe this webcomic. If I or someone else find(s) discussion in reliable secondary sources, then I will withdraw this nomination. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. One might presume that since the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is itself notable enough for an article, then an award given by them might then itself be notable. Its a pity that the author had not included additional sources toward notability, but was able to find other sources describing this webcomic. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: First, what I see in that search link are not "other sources" that match Wikipedia:RS and Wikipedia:V - what I see are Wikipedia mirrors, comixpedia, and other non-RS links. Second, I was told that the webcomics award is not notable as per Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group#Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards - does this confer notability. User:Dragonfiend said on that page 'No, long-standing consensus has been that those awards are not "a well-known and independent award."' WhisperToMe (talk) 04:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response ...but you asked for for discussions in reliable sources... and WP:RS requires that sources be considered in context with what is being sourced. You will not find an article on Sparkling Generation Valkyrie Yuuki in The Washington Post, nor will you find articles on Barrack Obama at the various webcomic sources offered. Some of the sources found are from those from experts in the genre whose opinions are respected, who are qualified to speak knowledgeably about the subject. Going through the search results, I found a review at Pesky Brain.com for example, that deals directly with the subject and qualifies "in context with what is being sourced"... just as might the review at Sequential Tart. And not using wiki-mirrors, there are additionl sources that might work for expansion at thewebcomiclist.com, comicalert.com, and crossovers.dragoneer.com. I was just trying to meet your concerns. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response: Look, news organizations have published articles about notable webcomics (yes, that is a sign of notability) and Wikipedia:Reliable sources generally describes sources which could be seen as reliable. Now, let's look at what you stated. Peskybrain.com is a blog. As per Wikipedia:V#Self-published_sources most blogs are not acceptable sources. ComicAlert is also problematic because it is a self-published website with reviews, added by third parties, that are not really screened. It just doesn't have authority or editorialism in it. If this was a website from a well-known writer about webcomics, then perhaps it would be proof of notability. As of right now there isn't any. Dragoneers is a blog/personal website, so we can't use that. ComicAlert and ComicList seem like clearinghouses for various webcomics but they do not analyze the webcomics, nor do they explain significance. To see what kinds of qualities notable sources need, see Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline WhisperToMe (talk) 06:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Webcomics-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I am a new user coming over from the SGVY forums, so you can take what I say with a grain of salt. However, I would mention the following:
  1. Besides winning the WCCA in 2204, SGVY has been nominated twice more.
  2. Dr Christopher Abram, lecturer in Medieval Scandinavian studies at University College London recently presented a paper at the Vikings in the 21st Century seminar series. The paper was entitled "Web Eddas: Technicolor Transformations of Nordic Myth" and, as this abstract shows, it cited SGVY as a modern interpretation of Nordic myths.
  3. SGVY's writer/artist, Kittyhawk, has been a guest at Dragon Con for several years. She was one of the founding members of the EFF's webcomics panel there. As far as I know, Dragon Con is the SouthEast's largest science fiction convention. Though obviously both verifiable and mediated by experts, I'm not exactly sure if guest status at a major convention would imbue noteworthiness or serve as a secondary source.

--Darkmanfan (talk) 08:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • Comment: BTW as for the paper, we need to have access to the paper itself. The abstract mentions it once. We need to gauge how significantly it was mentioned in the paper. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - won a notable award. WilyD 13:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The webcomic award is NOT considered to be a significant, independent award according to the webcomics wikiproject. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your knowledge of the viewpoint of the Webcomics Wikiproject is questionable because you only asked one member. Buspar (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - If it was ever questionable. It isn't now. User:Dragonfiend's comments need to be addressed in order for all of the keep indications to count. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • My point is that you're claiming to know the consensus of the webcomic project after talking to just one person. That's not a good way to assess it. It would be more accurate to say that you and Dragonfiend do not consider it significant. Those voting keep based on the WCCA win think differently. And as Michael pointed out below, consensus is mutable: if there's general agreement here that winning the WCCA satisfies WP:WEB by being a significant independent award, then that's how it becomes. Buspar (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Invalid rationale that asserts a total falsehood about the award won. It is indeed a notable award, and therefore the subject is notable. SashaNein (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The webcomic award is NOT considered to be a significant, independent award according to the webcomics wikiproject. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Your knowledge of the viewpoint of the Webcomics Wikiproject is questionable because you only asked one member. Buspar (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment - No, it is not questionable. It is valid because we base our views based on policy; please read Dragonfiend's post. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Policy says a comic needs to either have coverage or have won a significant award. I don't think anyone is questioning that. It's a matter of opinion of whether WCCA counts as a significant independent award. I say it is, as do several others. If most people say the WCCA counts, then the matter of opinion is settled and consensus says WP:WEB is satisfied. If more people agree with you and Dragonfiend, it goes the other way. That's what I was getting at. Buspar (talk) 00:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I demand to see proof of this consensus. As said before, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) says the exact opposite of your claims. I have asked Dragonfiend to provide PROOF of this 'long-standing consensus' that the WCCA is not notable, but he has chosen to outright ignore my request. I have provided an AFD discussion from 2007 that cites that the WCCA is indeed notable. Dragonfiend has provided nothing. SashaNein (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article does not meet our content policies nor our notability guidelines. Long-standing consensus which we are not going to override here is that, for example, per WP:V "If no reliable, third-party sources can be found for an article topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." and per WP:WEB that a site may be notable if it has won a "well-known and independent" award. The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not well-known by any sense. I've done an exhaustive search at my library -- the type of search that has improved and saved many a webcomic article from AfD -- and found nothing. Zero. Not a single reputable source in any of my library's databases even mentions this comic, let alone discusses it in any way that would help us write a useful encyclopedia article. --Dragonfiend (talk) 16:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Déja vu. I guess if you say the same thing over and over again, and the right audience just happens to go along, no one will question the opinions mixed in with policies. This whole AFD came about because you said that there was "Long-standing consensus" (a catchphrase?) that the WCCA is not a well-known and independent award. Please tell me where this 'consensus' was reached, because the extensive discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination) says the complete opposite. SashaNein (talk) 17:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards are not well-known by any sense. Incorrect. They're well known enough to have acquired a number of secondary sources that justify notability on Wikipedia. This means the WCCA's are well-known by Wikipedia's own standards of inclusion (as consensus has already ruled in the 2nd AfD for WCCA), which means they satisfy WP:WEB. Buspar (talk) 00:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, we need to find multiple references. So far, we have one (The Kings Cross paper) - Also, using the article I found: "Silver Bullets has described the committee as "an independent organization dedicated to the promotion and recognition of online comics and their creators."[4] However, committee member Lewis Powell[5] has criticised the awards as being "horribly mismanaged, they are not well organized and they don't do what they are supposed to" and that "Problems with the WCCAs [include] making people aware of them, getting people to care about them."[6]" - so the award itself can have its own wikipedia page, but a webcomic that wins this award is not suddenly notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the previous keeps. Seems pretty notable to me. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WCCA is a notable award (WP:WEB is passed), as proven by the 2nd AfD discussion which showed a consensus on that point. That's why the WCCA has its own article as well as subpages for each of the nominees and winners throughout the years. An admin ruling that the award is notable should not be overridden based solely on the vague allusion to a past discussion by a single editor. While we should assume good faith, we should also remember that how people interpret what conclusions are reached are subject to their personal bias and should therefore not be taken at face value (as WhisperToMe seems to have done here). With no details on the contents of those past discussions, the precedence of the 2nd WCCA AfD stands: the WCCA is a notable, independent award that satisfies WP:WEB for the webcomics that have been awarded one. WhisperToMe's assertion to the contrary should be discounted as being poorly supported. Buspar (talk) 08:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just want to add: while I think the article should be kept, it does need some serious work. Someone should go to Comixpedia and copy over the character and plot summaries, for starters. Buspar (talk) 08:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment: Buspar, please read Dragonfiend's comments. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There seems to be a lot of confusion where editors are throwing out some red herring about whether the Web Cartoonists' Choice Awards is a notable award. For purposes of this discussion we don't care whether it is a notable award. Notability is not inherited. We care, as WP:WEB sates, whether it is a "well known and independent" award. If a topic wins a well-known award, then many reputable sources will write about this. On the other hand, someone can win something like a No-Prize or Lord Florey Student Prize, but while such a Prize itself may meet Wikipedia:Notability, that does not mean every winner of such a prize will inherit this notability and can be covered in an encyclopedia. The same is true of these little known webcomics awards. In other words, find some reputable sources for this specific topic as per our content policies. Don't just have some sources for a related topic and hope they some how rub off on this one. --Dragonfiend (talk) 11:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In addition to the upcoming academic paper (abstract), Kittyhawk was interviewed by ComixTalk an on-line magazine concerning webcomics that (per WP:WEB) would seem to be both "respected and independent of the creators". The interview appeared in the interview section and not the blogs. So, it was not posted "without editorial oversight". If this indeed qualifies as a secondary source, WhisperToMe's nomination can be withdrawal. As I said: I'm a newbie, but I would think that in any case this needs to be addressed in order for all of the previous delete indications to count. --Darkmanfan (talk) 05:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's see. We have one academic paper, and we have ComixTalk. In the abstract the title is mentioned once, so it is a trivial mention. Wikipedia:Notability#General_notability_guideline says '"Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"' - A source that mentions it once without really going into detail about it is trivial coverage. We need to see the paper itself to see if it is significant coverage. Aside from the paper, that leaves one source that discusses this in detail. We need multiple reliable sources. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Understandable. I shall keep looking! --Darkmanfan (talk) 20:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for bringing this matter to AfD, as we are now in the process of creating a new consensus that some other editor may themselves refer to in the future. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The feminist comics site Girl Wonder interviewed Kittyhawk and discussed her work in one of their podcast. The webcomics newsite Coloring Dragons also has an interview. Kittyhawk will be a guest at the upcoming Momocon. --Darkmanfan (talk) 21:17, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Do Girl Wonder and Coloring Dragons have editorial oversight? One reason ComixTalk magazine counts as a good source is because its articles are reviewed and edited by those in charge. If those two have the same structure, they'd be good to add. Great work, by the way. You're clearly doing a truly exhaustive search. Buspar (talk) 23:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks! I know as a newb my opinion doesn't hold much sway (rightly so!). I'm trying to let the facts speak for themselves. I don't know about the other sections of Girl Wonder, but the podcast is not open to the public. It's always "those in charge": Hannah Dame, Kate Fizsimmons, and Kim Fourtner. They usually (as in this podcast) have a guest selected by those three. The interview from Coloring Dragons is labeled as a "Coloring Dragons Exclusive" and lacks a submission username, so one assumes it came from the editorial staff and was not an upmodded public submission. Both groups are "independent of the creators" of SGVY. --Darkmanfan (talk) 00:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I did some more digging with Archive.org and Deletionpedia. It would appear that the original version of this article was nominated for deletion in 2003 on notability grounds. The consensus was keep. It should be noted that the main justification for the AfD was the site's perceived lack of popularity due to its (then) high Alexa ranking. Though Wikipedia no longer enforces any sort of "Alexa test", this comic would likely pass it anyway. Its current Alexa ranking is well below 200,000. Its traffic has more than doubled since the original consensus finding it to be notable. The article hung around for almost five years before it was AfD'd for a lack of third party sources. In light of all of this, I would think the prudent thing to do would be to steer the conversation away from the WCCA and notability. The comic was found by consensus to be notable in and of itself. Instead, I would argue that central issue is if there are enough third party sources to write a well founded and neutrally toned article. --Darkmanfan (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Look, 2003 was awhile ago (I became an admin back then). We did not have many of the policies and standards then that we did now. There are articles that survive previous AFDs that fail later ones because of stricter policies. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough. Can you point me towards which portions of the notability standard have been strengthened? Because my understanding was that in general they have been loosened (e.g. no Alexa test). --Darkmanfan (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Here's one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (18th nomination) - 18 nominations before it was deleted. It was first listed in 2004, and it was deleted in 2006. WhisperToMe (talk) 05:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry if I was unclear. I'm sure there are many instances of multiply nominated articles eventually being deleted. I was asking what notability policy changes since 2003 you thought were relevant here. Thank you for brightening my day by bringing the GNAA to my attention however. :) --Darkmanfan (talk) 06:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • In 2006 the current Wikipedia:Notability wasn't really established yet. This was three years after 2003! (See this revsision) - In 2004 Wikipedia:Notability was like this [26] - And prior to then there was Wikipedia:Importance [27] - And before that there was WP:WIWO [28] - I'm not even sure what there was back then in 2003. I'll have to look further, but it is clear that a lot has changed. WhisperToMe (talk) 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Really? Wow. Sorry about that. I completely withdrawal my claim the 2003 AfD could be interpreted as settling the issue of notability. However, I stand by my claim that my life has been enriched by my exposure to GNAA. --Darkmanfan (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm sorry about the incomplete state of the article - I've had to work on it slowly. Thanks for the Comixpedia tip - I will take a look at it so I don't need to reinvent the wheel in my summaries. And thanks to Darkmanfan for finding those new sources - could you add them to the article? I haven't had much time to edit Wiki lately. The long notability arguments people have posted are largely over my head, though I agree with the people who say the WCCA's are important. I'm not sure I understand what Dragonfiend is getting at with notability inheritance. Inheritance makes me think of a parent-child relationship, like the subsection of an article split off to its own page. If an obscure movie gets an Oscar, it gets its own article, right? The Oscar makes it important because of the associated status. But the history of the Oscars isn't inherited by the movie. Or are movies that win an award considered subsections of the award itself? It's confusing to me the way he (she?) has written it. Sorry. Ancemy (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to closing admin Lots of new users here displaying unfamiliarity with wikipedia's content standards as well as users with long history of using multiple accounts for conflict of interest edits and to manipulate AfD results. We still do not have the type of reliable sources that our content policies call for. As far as this trivial award goes, it was eliminated by the awards chairman because in his words it was like "one of those 'participation' ribbons you used to get at school track meets or science fairs."[29] --Dragonfiend (talk) 22:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Dragonfiend, did you even read the source you're throwing around? That source doesn't say the award was trivial; it said the awards would get trivial if they kept adding categories. It says nothing about how important or unimportant the award was at the time. Likewise, the chairman didn't say he eliminated the award because it was trivial; he said he eliminated it because a) it was unfair to other genres that weren't represented in the awards; and b) it was hard to define, given the number of cross-genre comics. The source in no way implies that the award this comic got was non-notable. —Politizer talk/contribs 02:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find your comment somewhat disrespectful to new users since you seem to be implying we're either a) ignorant or b) deceitful. I was just pointing out you weren't stating your case clearly enough. And I think that quote was meant as a joke, since in the first question he says the purpose of the WCCA is "to celebrate and acknowledge the best and the brightest talents in the global webcomic community." He clearly means the awards to be taken seriously. Ancemy (talk) 00:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would you mind elucidating a bit? You say there are "lots of new users here". By my count, only ten people have commented as of this comment: User:Ancemy,User:Darkmanfan,User:Buspar,User:Dragonfiend,User:Gene93k,User:MichaelQSchmidt,User:Mvuijlst,User:SashaNein,User:WhisperToMe,User:WilyD. Is that really an uncharacteristically large crowd for Wikipedia? The crowd also doesn't seem especially youthful. User:SashaNein's userpage was deleted, but of the remaining nine only two have userpages less than six months old and only four have userpages less than a year old. I'm not exactly sure what your position is. Are you saying that because more than two or three people are involved in this AfD process it is somehow invalid? Are you advocating biting the newbs or at least ignoring them? Why exactly do you think these points are relavent? Similiarily, my assumption of good faith means that I cannot take your charge of manipulation seriously unless you substantiate it with some sort of evidence (e.g. examples of identical IP's logging into the accounts). I'm sure you are familiar with the relevant policies, why then do you bring this up at all? Another point on which I'd like clarification: can you tell me why 1,2, and 3 aren't "the type of reliable sources that our content policies call for". They each provide substantial coverage from an independent non-public source in the relevant field. Am I missing something? Do I need to go ahead and add them to the article to have them addressed? Anything further you could offer would be helpful. --Darkmanfan (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just realized that you have already added a reference to comixtalk to the article, so I assume you agree it to be a suitable reference. I'm busy at the moment, but I have started to add this reference to other pages as well. --Darkmanfan (talk) 01:14, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In case it wasn't clear from my bolded statement Comment to closing admin, my Comment was to the closing admin. My hope is that they can take into account things like the amazing coincidences that seem to surround User:Buspar and his many multiple accounts which have a habit of showing up and voting together on the same AfDs and making the same conflict of interest edits. I'm sure the closing admin is savy enough that they can contact me for more information. --Dragonfiend (talk) 01:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • A savvy closing admin will also see the part on your talk page where another admin said explicitly, "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry. Please don't venue shop that claim any more." So you've just been rather rude to two editors and harassed a third (me) by rehashing false accusations. The closing admin should note such behavior when they weigh which sides to consider. Buspar (talk) 04:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You greatly exaggerate your numbers. You claim there are 'lots' of new users, when I only see ONE. You claim there are "users" with a history of sockpuppetry, when there are ZERO. Now I can see where your 'long-standing consensus' that the WCCA is not a notable subject. Oh no, it didn't come from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Web Cartoonist's Choice Awards (2nd nomination), which says the complete opposite. It came from a consensus of ONE. Your attempts to derail this discussion with baseless accusations of sockpuppetry and notability consensus claims with zero proof provided whatsoever exhibits a colossal failure of assuming good faith. SashaNein (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The problem is the article, not the subject. The article's subject meets notability guidelines; it's the article itself that has failed to express that yet. That just means that the article needs to be cleaned up and expanded, not deleted. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request WhisperToMe provides this link at the top of the page, regarding a consensus on the notability conferring abilities of the WCCA (or the lack thereof). However, it simply links to a page where she is told as much by Dragonfiend with no one else chiming in. I know that this AfD has recently steered towards an examination the sources attached to the article and away from notability, but I would still like to read the WCCA discussion. Can anyone help a brother out by providing the correct link? --Darkmanfan (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Here is the answer: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Webcomics/Archive_5#Award_sites - Dragonfiend said that the answer is that if gaining an award means that other sources write about the comic, then the award nomination is notable. I.E. winning the WCCA is not enough by itself; the comic also has to have reliable sources generated because of the award. Nobody said anything after that, so Dragonfiend's statements were not challenged. I'll see if I can find more. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks for the research, and for continuing to dig. This is enlightening, but I have to say that it still doesn't seem like the discussion Dragonfiend has been refering to (both in this AfD and elsewhere). In the link you provide, an editor asks if the WCCA confers notability. They receive two responses. One is from someone who references instances where it has been used to prove notability and one from Dragonfiend where she says: "If being nominated for or winning any award results in being the topic of multiple non-trivial reputable sources, than winning the award meets Wikipedia:Notability". I don't think this is the "long-standing consensus" to which Dragonfiend refers, because I don't think she would be intentionally misleading. Being the last to speak when others have spoken first in disagreement is hardly consensus. Two days ago Politizer said, "the article's subject meets notability guidelines". No one has since responded to him. Do we suddenly have a "long-standing consensus" that SGVY is a notable subject worthy of an article? Maybe I'm wrong, but I wouldn't think so. Again, I appreciate your research. It's times like this I wish Wikipedia had better ways for searching for content strictly about itself. Dragonfiend will probably give us the link when she comments again, in the meantime I'll keep looking as well. --Darkmanfan (talk) 02:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some Strangers Are Well Known[edit]

Some Strangers Are Well Known (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article purposely contains insufficient information to ascertain notability. Author claims "secrecy" in keeping the cast and director undisclosed; without that information the film could be someone's high school film project. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 02:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Indeed, it very well may be someone's high school, or perhaps college, film project. A Google search leads me to a YouTube account, rockyedj54, apparently a Dutch 19-year-old who has released two teasers for his upcoming "movie" -- most likely to be released as a series of YouTube videos. Also, the only other commenter on one of the videos is MrSouthSideE, which is also the name of the user who created this article. I suspect a conflict of interest, therefore. Regardless, the point is that this subject fails to meet the notability guidelines and seems to be purely self-promotional. I say "delete." A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 03:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with haste. A careful search found it here on English Wiki, over at Dutch Wiki, and on youtube. There is absolutely nothing else out there. Anywhere. The article as writen cannot be further researched. Notability, however unlikley it may be, cannot be ascertained. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Michael Q. Schmidt. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per lack of evidence of notability. McWomble (talk) 05:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:FILMNOT. —Hello, Control Hello, Tony 22:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedily deleted by me. This is one of those articles that is so bad that it is difficult to work out which deletion criteria apply to it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple emitter Engineer Product Design[edit]

Multiple emitter Engineer Product Design (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article content has nothing to do with its (nonsense) title. If something was requested in WP:Requested articles/Applied arts and sciences, it doesn't mean that such article should be created no matter what. btw, there is already article Tom Thomson. Skarebo (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong Delete. Highly unencyclopedic article rife with issues, including the fact that its nonsensical title has nothing to do with the article's content. It combines unreferenced, biased information about engineering with a sloppy quasi-biography of Tom Thomson, already the subject of his own article. POV is employed throughout the article and misspellings are everywhere. But beyond that, the article doesn't make sense, its title doesn't make sense, and really there is no reason for its existence. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per all of above. We have articles for real engineering, and the material on Thomson is copied from the existing article. TheFeds 04:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFeds (talk • contribs) [reply]
  • Speedy Delete as nonsense. Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 04:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Snowball keep. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Past life regression[edit]

Past life regression (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is a mess! I know that AfD is not cleanup, but when an article is comprised almost solely of original research and POV and is on an unencyclopedic, possibly non-notable topic, what else is there to do? No secondary non-trivial sources that are independent of the group that promotes this concept. This might also be a WP:COI. What do you think? Mister Senseless™ (Speak - Contributions) 02:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into Hypnosis. Original research and POV are big problems with the article, but I feel that its subject could easily be summarized and included as a theory about hypnotism held by some to be true. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Whether one thinks that "past life regression" is "real", or "real stupid", the topic certainly is notable [30]. If the problem is "poor sourcing" (I don't agree), then there's a plethora of verifiable sources to draw from. Nominator is correct that AfD is not cleanup. Mandsford (talk) 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is certainly a notable topic. The article is not so bad. At least it attempts to treat the subject seriously and neutrally. Steve Dufour (talk) 04:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Subject is covered by plenty of WP:RS. POV can be fixed (starting here [31] for some skeptical sources would be a good idea.) gnfnrf (talk)
  • Keep - the subject is certainly notable and well-documented. The article is sourced and pretty well-written. I don't believe in past lives, but that's no reason to want it gone. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move to Cleanup. Sources exist. Notability exists. The article can be fixed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree that the subject is non-notable, original research or POV. I personally don't believe that PLR is a real effect but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a balanced, explanatory WP article about it. As regards to a more neutral treatment, here is another paper I suggested in the article's talk: M Schröter-Kunhardt (1996). Reinkarnationsglaube und Reinkarnationstherapie: Eine transpersonale Fiktion. Transpersonale Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 67-83 reprint. (Belief in reincarnation and reincarnation therapy: a transpersonal fiction). --EPadmirateur (talk) 05:58, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article may have issues, but is certainly a notable topic given its popularity in the media. NPOV will be hard to balance, but there are certainly going to be sources available. Topic is covered in some detail in a Thomson Gale encyclopedia in a relatively neutral, skeptical manner. --Clay Collier (talk) 10:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - subject is dumb, but as the sources already cited demonstrate, quite notable. WilyD 13:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mayya Singh Saini[edit]

Mayya Singh Saini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Fails the WikiProject Military biographical notability guidelines. Exactly zero hits on google[32], google scholar [33] and google books [34] (all hits refer to persons with the same name). Only statement of notability is that he appears at the Sikh Encyclopedia, which could be this book The Encyclopaedia of Sikhism or this website [35] (and it's broken atm, so I can't check it out). Sikhwiki list him only as a horseman, not as a commander [36] Enric Naval (talk) 01:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Does not in any way meet the General Notability Guidelines. It even says in the article itself, "It is not clear from the account available whether Mayya Singh was a commander or just an ordinary cavalryman." If there is no evidence that Mayya Singh was a commander and we have no reason to believe he was anything but a cavalryman, what reason could there possibly be for keeping this article? Singh as an individual did not have any historical significance, and so he does not have enough significance for his own article on Wikipedia. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also note the creator has made substantial edits [37] (over 500?!) to the Saini article within the last few months, many of which appear to violate Wikipedia's NPOV and OR guidelines, which might lead one to suspect a conflict of interest with the subject matter. Is it possible for anybody to check up on the two book sources that are cited in the article? Themfromspace (talk) 02:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No claims giving rise to even hint of notability, let alone demonstration of notability under the general notability guidelines. See also the WikiProject Military biographical notability guidelines, for a topic-specific guideline that the subject also fails to meet. Bongomatic 02:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He passes the General Notability Guideline if he has significant coverage in reliable sources such as history books. Unfortunately we don't have page numbers so perhaps it's unreasonable to ask anyone to attempt to verify those given. From google it does appear that the www.thesikhencyclopedia.com has (or had) an entry for him beginning "MAYYA SINGH, a Saini Sikh ofNaushahra in Amritsar district of the Punjab and a horseman of the Sikh army, fought in the battle of Ramnagar on 22 November " [38] Juzhong (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd rather follow the wikiproject guidelines on notability unless there is some good reason to skip them. Looking here, is there a good reason to have an article of him even if he's not "the primary topic of one or more published secondary works"? --Enric Naval (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because by not deleting a topic which "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" you wouldn't be a bunch of cunts. Juzhong (talk) 23:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the question is whether the coverage is "significant" or "trivial" or "more than trivial, but not enough to meet notability". --Enric Naval (talk) 18:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Mayya Singh's refernece in found in Sikh Encycolopedia , edited by Harbans Singh, published by Punjabi University , Patiala. Please explain why a personality merits inclusion in one encyclopedia and does not merit inclusion in Wikipedia. Otherwise, it appears that notability tag is use arbitrarily. Presence of internet is not necessarily a validation of notability. Please see The Sikh Encycolopedia. The article will be expanded with more depth collaboratively as and when more primary sources become available.

I gave an explanation of wikipedia's definition of notability here [39] --Enric Naval (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Include him in the appropriate article(s) first and redirect him there. I don't see evidence of his notability sufficient for a stand alone article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy deleted by me. In addition to what is said below, the article promotes a particular corporation. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The six essentials of software testing[edit]

The six essentials of software testing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Wikipedia is not a how-to. This is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. PROD nomination was deleted. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 by default as there is neither clear consensus to delete nor any policy violation. Article could use some cleanup but that is no reason for deletion. JodyB talk 04:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfDs for this article:

List of Lebanese people[edit]

List of Lebanese people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Total nonsense entries - names of People dead 1000 years ago and others who have nothing to do with Lebanon Cleanuplebanonproject (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This is why there is an "edit" button on each article. If there's something on the list that is "total nonsense" and doesn't belong, take it off. Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it? It is funny and entertaining. Jean Paul Belmondo is a greek Orthodoxx Fanatic raised in the Balamand Convent and Gergis Khamis of Bkaatouta is the Nephew of Gensis Khan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.89.188.60 (talk) 14:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that comment was left unsigned. It sounds like something made up, kind of along the lines of "I voted for the Democrats because I want my taxes raised." Mandsford (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete This list is not useful. The fact of the vast majority of entries are correct does not make it useful. What about the small minority of entries that are not correct? Cleaning it up by simply removing red links is not enough and the cleaning up work is almost impossible unless done by an expert in Lebanese Genealogy. Who might be that expert? More importantantly, even if all entries were correct and for this list to make sense, it would need to include all notable Lebanese people, at least all those with a Wikipedia article. Is this not what categories are made for?
Oh now, we don't need "an expert in Lebanese Genealogy" to quote from other sources that identify a person as being of Lebanese descent. I do agree that the list is somewhat vague in distinguishing between natives of Lebanon, and persons who have ancestors who lived in Lebanon. On the other hand, there is no reason that one must choose between categories or a list. At the moment, I don't see anybody stepping up to the plate to do any sourcing, so the article may well end up deleted. Mandsford (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Protonk (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on relisting I've relisted this debate to get some actual discussion going about this list. Is it salvageable (Looks like it to me)? Is there some coherent suggest for what to do with it? Is it sourceable? Protonk (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have List of Spaniards and List of English people. I know, OTHERCRAPEXISTS, but there is no real argument as to why this list should not be here. Just keep it cleaned up and vandal-free. Of course, sourcing is essential, and if not sourced, articles should be removed from the list. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as it's sourced. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retest[edit]

Retest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Insufficient content for a standalone article —G716 <T·C> 03:17, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as above.-Synchronism (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no part of our Wikipedia:Deletion policy that supports those rationales. If articles are stubs with scope for expansion, we expand them. We don't delete them. If articles are duplicate articles we merge them. We don't delete them. There's plenty of scope for a full article on the subject of test-retest reliability — a subject that is covered in plenty of books, including pages 307–308 of ISBN 9781412924825 for example — and clearly this is a duplicate article at an alternative title. When you see duplicate articles, Wikipedia:Duplicate articles should be your first port of call, not AFD. AFD is not cleanup, and is not a way out of fixing an article yourself, with the tools in the toolbox that you, as ordinary editors, have full access to. Please read, and follow, the procedure in User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage when doing new page patrol in the future. Uncle G (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, StarM 01:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I don't understand Uncle G's rationale, since this is nothing but a word which belongs at Wiktionary. I also object to Uncle G's harsh response and lack of good faith. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you don't understand the rationale, then please read the very policy that is linked to in its very first sentence. Pay close attention to the section of that policy entitled "Alternatives to deletion" and what is written in the sub-section entitled "Merging" within that. You are also either confused or not writing what you mean. I do not lack good faith. You might be thinking about someone else lacking good faith, and a third party accusing them of that, but no-one has in fact done that here. (Unless you count what you yourself wrote. But because I assume good faith I assume that either you misunderstand what the assumption of good faith actually is or that you didn't write what you meant, rather than that you are actually accusing me of not contributing in good faith. ☺) Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge. There's plenty of scope for a full article on test-retest reliability. We already have that article, so why do we need this one? Oh, and yelling at people for not being omniscient about Wikipedia isn't productive. I'm glad we have a Wikipedia:Duplicate articles, and probably a Wikipedia:Not quite duplicate articles and probably a Wikipedia:Admin's noticeboard/Duplicate articles, but I've not heard of any of them in the two years I've been here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There may be scope for an article about this, but this isn't it. I would encourage Uncle G to remind himself of the content of WP:AGF and WP:CIV. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I in turn encourage you to read what I actually wrote, rather than the misleading commentary on it. I made no assertion of any bad faith on anyone's part at any point, and was perfectly civil. I did point out where deletion rationales have no basis in policy, explaining why, and, with emphasis, show editors where to go, and what tools to use, when they see duplicate articles — something that is already explained in numerous places, not least in the very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion. Uncle G (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WeeChat[edit]

WeeChat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

I can't find any reliable sources that show notability. Schuym1 (talk) 05:35, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete just another IRC client. Loads of Ghits but they are all forums and the like. I could not find any coverage in reliable sources and while I did find a few reviews (e.g. [40]) they were all rather skimpy and from self published sources. Icewedge (talk) 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Icewedge's investigation and determination of non-notability. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. MBisanz talk 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ULYFL[edit]

ULYFL (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This is an article about a youth football league in one Virginia city, it has one source. Is this notable, I err towards no. While the article contains enough information to not be an advert and has fine presentation, it doesn't seem to indicate the history of the program or why it is a notable or distinct organization Synchronism (talk) 07:36, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WilyD's sources. Also per this. Icewedge (talk) 01:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand and further source per the finds of Icewedge and WilyD. Nice research. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:ORG: "Organizations whose activities are local in scope are usually not notable unless verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area can be found." The sources adduced by WilyD and Icewedge all deal with a single topic (an effort to acquire land for a football field), and none of them are "outside the organization's local area". Deor (talk) 13:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It's a youth football league... If every youth league that got some press time was notable, we'd have more youth sport articles than we know what to do with. Shoot, if you wanted to I could dig up enough sources for my old local Little League to make it seem "notable". But, it's a 200+/- kid program thats had a few good all star teams make runs to the state tournament over the years. Coastalsteve984 (talk) 14:02, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:18, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zaitun Time Series[edit]

Zaitun Time Series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable software; possible spam —G716 <T·C> 19:07, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a non-notable software product. Google search shows only "download" links on various repositories, and no actual coverage, as one would expect if this was a notable program. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete: Seems to be just another SW product in alpha stage. Not notable. Skarebo (talk) 02:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Li'l Sneezer[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Li'l Sneezer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, one sentence of real-world relevance. gnfnrf (talk) 05:12, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Gnfnrf. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer This discussion should be included in the group nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babs and Buster Bunny. - jc37 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not delete Li'l Sneezer. He is one of 22 important characters from Tiny Toon Adventures. All of the information is accurate and supports the plot and overall character of Sneezer. Artayes
  • Delete. The character has no real world notability independent from its context. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiny Toon Adventures. MBisanz talk 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Little Beeper[edit]

Little Beeper (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge properly a section is enough, but the 10 words there isn't. maybe if we agreed to have adequate merged section people wouldn't try articles like t his. But as long as we keep it down so it doesn't really give some idea of the character, its not providing enough information. If afd has become the p[lace for centralized merge discussions, maybe I should decide to stop objecting to that. DGG (talk) 05:18, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No references, a single sentence of real-world relevance. gnfnrf (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
dont think so, the consensus there seems to be that the group nom is invalid. DGG (talk) 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, there isn't. MuZemike (talk) 03:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiny Toon Adventures. MBisanz talk 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcia the Martian[edit]

Marcia the Martian (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as a minor character in the show. that's the real reason. I don';t see anything currently in the article, & search doesn't bring it up, so it has to be added. A section in the main article would be enough if it were there. DGG (talk) 05:14, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tiny Toon Adventures#Characters. No real world notability for this minor character, as far as I can tell. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Tiny Toon Adventures. MBisanz talk 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fowlmouth[edit]

Fowlmouth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This character does not establish notability independent of Tiny Toon Adventures through the inclusion of real world information from reliable, third party sources. Most of the information is made up of original research and unnecessary plot details. There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article, so the section in the main article is enough. TTN (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak keep I think the content here is probably sourceable, but it does need some work. And he's just a supporting character. Might possibly be better to merge. There. I've !voted for something different each time, and actually read & considered the articles. And in this case, learned for the first time about the show--though I rather wish that hadn't been necessary :) DGG (talk) 04:38, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Tiny Toon Adventures#Characters, minor character with evidently no real world notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the closer This discussion should be included in the group nom at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Babs and Buster Bunny. - jc37 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No it shouldn't. That nomination is bad enough as it is. Stifle (talk) 16:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How does this nom differ from that group nom? All of these noms are about Tiny Toons characters. And I would think that a group nom which discusses this would be something that the closer should at least take into consideration in attempting to determine consensus. The more voices, the clearer the view of the community, I would think. - jc37 16:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Tiny Toon Adventures. McWomble (talk) 05:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Please do not delete Fowlmouth. He is one of 22 important characters from Tiny Toon Adventures. All of the information is accurate and supports the plot and overall character of Fowlmouth. Artayes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artayes (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1st Round Draft Picks[edit]

1st Round Draft Picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Doesn't seem to be notable. By an artist who's marginally notable and one who isn't at all. No secondary sources found. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 23:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sailor Ranko[edit]

Sailor Ranko (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable fanfiction with no evidence that it can pass Wikipedia:Notability or that its writer/creator is notable either. There are no reliable sources independent of the work or its creator. Was originally prodded, but the prod was disputed under claims that the fanfic is popular. --Farix (Talk) 01:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm on the thin line for this one -- if the popularity of fukufic could be substantiated with a source more reliable than TV-Tropes, and if this series could be verified as the longest-running series of the genre, then you could make an argument of it passing WP:BK #3. (And there's an insane amount of fics with this premise, really.) Until all this is substantiated, however, the notability is not verified. If sources can be found by the end of this AfD, I'll say weak keep, but in default of them, delete for now, without prejudice for recreation if the sources are found later. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Therefore, it will need more evidence then someone claiming it to be "the first." But so far, there hasn't been any evidence whatsoever from a reliable source to back up anything in the article. --Farix (Talk) 04:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SHPEGS[edit]

SHPEGS (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Not notable and no reliable sources confirming notability: not in the news, no scientific papers, no books referring to this open source project. From the news section on the project home page it appears nothing is happening for over a year now on this project. Crowsnest (talk) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. If this was notable there would be plenty of literature on it. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability not established and what's there lookied like some sort of definition. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This technology is well established as shown in Google Search results. I think there just isn't enough people who understand about the technical details on this topic.

The article has strong potential of being expanded, since the first link even has well established animations. This technology has been on Daily Planet before and was even discuss at the book "The Daily Planet Book of Cool Ideas" --Ramu50 (talk) 04:55, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Insufficient coverage has been found in reliable third-party sources to establish that this is a notable topic. Google can only point users to references, it can't be used to establish notability based solely on number of hits returned. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Really. A "list of bow tie wearers." Just because information is sourced does not mean that it is discriminate. And this is what I'll say at the inevitable DRV, too.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Overturned to no consensus per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 November 19. lifebaka++ 16:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of bow tie wearers[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of bow tie wearers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

This article is entirely original research. Almost everyone has worn a bow tie at some point, and this article is an indiscriminate collection of information, contrary to WP:NOT. A case in point would be the 'list of big-busted models' article that was earlier deleted. How many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?. The "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" should be merged back into bow tie and the list deleted. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please note: a discussion on a possible renaming and tightening of criteria, proposed by a neutral admin, has been posted at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)
Notice: I've said it in the discussion below, but it bears repeating in a visible spot: if any material is merged, the GFDL requires the history to be retained for attribution reasons. A combination of delete and merge is therefore not possible the proper course after a merge would be to redirect the original page. - Mgm|(talk) 12:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Disclosure: I've never worn a bow tie.) We don't need this. It's an embarrassment. If a given individual was known for his bow ties, then they can be mentioned in the article about that individual. Delete. DS (talk) 00:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From WP:CLN: "Lists are good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia, and provide a useful alternative to the category system - lists are often more comprehensive because each is maintained from a centralized location (at the page itself)." Of course the wearing of the bow tie should be noted in the individual's article, but why is it bad to compile them? I'm not clear on your reasoning here.--otherlleft (talk) 14:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral- I just wanted to point out- the last AFD for this list closed not even a MONTH ago. Umbralcorax (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wore a bow tie once. I don't see any of my wedding photos in this article (probably just as well). More seriously, anything encyclopedic here could easily be shifted across - with no GFDL issues - to Bow tie. Delete. Black Kite 00:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all useful content to bow tie. There is good content here, however the list is entirely indiscriminate and what content we do have would be much better off in the bow tie article, which I note needs a wider perspective on things anyway. A short list could be included in the bow tie article. Listing people who wear article of clothing X isn't very encyclopedic. Hersfold (t/a/c) 00:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - seems mostly non-encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 00:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest of Deletes maybe now that Noroton "fired" Wikipedia we can get this off. Seriously, like the nom said, this is an embarassment. JuJube (talk) 00:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, I've put the encyclopedia on probation for the present, but thanks for the sweet comment, JuJube. Apologies for the embarassment. Oh, by the way, since I first saved the article from deletion, it seems impervious to destruction without my efforts, although I credit Orlady with keeping up the quality. Wait for Orlady to fire Wikipedia -- but I wouldn't bet on deletion even then. -- Noroton (talk) 02:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge there is some good content in the article, but the list is not part of it. As the nom said, it does not make sense to list people by something most people have done in their lives. Icewedge (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I took a look at the "lists of people" section of WP:STAND and found this:

Selected lists of people should be selected for importance/notability in that category and should have Wikipedia articles (or the reasonable expectation of an article in the future). For example, list of atheists doesn't include every individual with a Wikipedia article who happens to be an atheist, because not all of them are notable for their atheism. However, it might well include Sigmund Freud.

I concur with Icewedge that listing anyone who has ever worn a bow tie is in violation with this guideline. Efforts must be made with this, and for that matter all lists of people, to ensure that only people notable in that category (in this case, for wearing bow ties) be included. However, that is not in itself a criterion for deletion so far as I can tell.--otherlleft (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well referenced, but a dictionary article can be well-referenced too; the point is that this is too trivial of a list topic. Nyttend (talk) 01:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Previous deletr arguments revolved largely upon IDONTTHINKITSIMPORTANT. In many cases this was a distinguishing characteristic, and if it can be documented that it was so considered, the article is justified. That's what keeps it from being indiscriminate. DGG (talk) 01:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand. Are you saying that because people think it isn't important, it is? I'm not saying that though - I'm saying that the criteria for inclusion are arbitrary, and point one of Wikipedia:NOTDIRECTORY. As WP:SALAT states, if you create a list like the "list of shades of colours of apple sauce", be prepared to explain why you feel this list contributes to the state of human knowledge. The number of possible lists is limited only by our collective imagination: where next? List of hat wearers? List of people who refrain from wearing socks? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 01:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watch out with that last one. There's some user who has a bare-feet fetish and keeps altering articles, uploading images, and creating categories accordingly. Don't give him ideas. Deor (talk) 13:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Two areas of concern. The first is as stated above, there is a genuine question if this is encyclopedic enough (WP:NOT) - do we want articles of the form "List of people who wear/don't wear clothing item X"? Although harmless, it strays too far into "indiscriminate collection of information" and "non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations" for me. I'd also feel it is too marginal a topic to be really appropriate as a list.
    The other concern which applies if the content is kept or merged is, this is supposedly a list. But in fact the introduction and entire long first section is essentially full of bowtie promotion (!) - "A man's wearing of bow ties is often noticed and commented upon" ... "Men's clothier Jack Freedman told the New York Times that wearing a bow tie 'is a statement maker' " ... "can be a badge of courage" ... "have certainly helped businesses" -- sentence after sentence of "bowtie positive" allusions, quotations, and commercialization. None of this belongs in a "list of wearers". Whatever else may happen, if it's kept then as a list, this isn't needed, and if merged into bowtie this aspect probably needs a bit of review, balancing, or sanitizing. FT2 (Talk | email) 02:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "encyclopedic" enough? From WP:FIVE, first pillar, first sentence: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia incorporating elements of general encyclopedias, specialized encyclopedias, and almanacs (boldface added). With -- what? -- 2.5 million articles, Wikipedia should have as many comic book-related articles as a comic book encyclopedia, as many articles on Vermont topics as a Vermont encyclopedia, and as many articles as a good fashion encyclopedia. Is fashion important? I think so -- as an industry, as an art, as a social artifact. It seems to me that the topic of which notable people wear bow ties is something that a very good fashion encyclopedia would want to cover for the reasons mentioned at the top of the article: notable people wearing bow ties affects the bow tie business and is a notable element in bow tie advertising -- that's why the information was put there, not to promote bow ties. We cover business topics, of course, and to an extent, this is one of them, in addition to the fashion history and societal aspects. You say the entire long first section is essentially full of bowtie promotion (!) Actually, the first sentence of the second paragraph states: Fashion commentator John Molloy was once quoted as saying "Wear a bow tie and nobody will take you seriously."[4] Writing in the "dress-for-success" column in Success Magazine he stated that people didn't trust bow tie wearers. Most coverage of bow tie wearing tends to be less negative, and we're largely at the mercy of our sources, under WP:NPOV. In any event, your objection is a content matter, not a deletion matter. There is nothing indiscriminate in listing notable people whose public image is tied in with their bow ties to the extent that their neckwear is referred to as "trademark" or "signature bow tie". -- Noroton (talk) 03:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apparently the top section had been heavily trimmed. Orlady restored it. The current version, here, has a better balance between negative and positive. -- Noroton (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is going to be boring because some of my comments are going to be repeats of comments I made in previous AfDs, but it's not my fault that we are being subjected to repeated AfDs for this article.
    The phenomenon documented by this list is notable. The vast majority of the entries on this list are notable men (and fictional characters) whose habit of wearing bow ties has been widely remarked upon in reliable sources (for example, for many of the real people who have died, bow-tie-wearing is mentioned in the first sentence of the obituary).
    This is not original research -- contributors have worked hard to ensure that every entry on the list is sourced, and many of the list entries are based on lists in published articles about the phenomenon of bow-tie-wearing. It would be logical to merge this into Bow tie, but that would not be desirable because the resulting article would be excessively long (this list article is over 40k by itself). Combining the two articles would merely create a new problem needing a new solution.
    For the people on this list, "wearing of bow ties" is not a trivial association. The overwhelming emphasis of the sources cited and quoted in this article is on the bow tie as a major, deliberately chosen element of a man's identity or public image. How else to explain (for example) the university president who capitalizes on his reputation for a "trademark bow tie" by calling his travels around the state "Bow Tie Bus Tours"? Or how about the TV journalist who stopped wearing bow ties when he joined CBS because a network official told him that Charles Osgood was CBS' bow-tie-wearing personality and "We can't have two guys wearing bow ties"? Or how about the politicians who are nicknamed "Bow Tie" by their opponents and/or supporters? This is an association that goes beyond mere personal taste.
    An earlier commenter urged people to avoid making WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments. I also suggest avoiding WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments, which is what most of the arguments for deletion have been. --Orlady (talk) 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominating an article for deletion (or renominating thereof) does not automatically equate to not liking it. MuZemike (talk) 03:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I couldn't agree more. I'm not debating that it's well referenced - I can create a well-referenced article on colour shades of apple sauce. But when you take a man who has worn a bow tie as a 'trademark', is it worth any more than a passing sentence in his article? Perhaps on bow tie there might be a list of three or four persons who have been involved in bow tie related problems, like the people you mention - but including one person because "[He] wore a bow tie in a photo that appeared on the cover of the 16 July 1954 issue of Life magazine", or because Lee is pictured wearing bow ties on his Cornell University webpage and his Nobel Prize biography page" is northing more than WP:OR. Where are the reliable secondary sources on his wearing of bow-ties? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • My apologies if I misinterpreted your rationale for deletion, but I am laboring under the impression that you said the article was "entirely original research", and that is the assertion I was responding to. If you now agree the article is well-referenced, then what is your basis for saying it's entirely original research? --Orlady (talk) 00:30, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think ST47 (talk · contribs) has summed up my reasoning quite succinctly. See below, at 00:16, 16 November 2008. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, to be perfectly clear, you no longer stand behind the first sentence of your deletion nomination, where you said the article is "entirely original research"? (ST47's comments do not address that. Rather, they seem to be focused on a personal theory of "what is a list.") Can you please strike out that statement? --Orlady (talk) 14:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For the record, I really like this article! It's fun in a very British way, love to Stumble on it. I just don't think it's encyclopedic The muffin is not subtle (talk) 04:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it would not be in a paper one, but we have gone so far past the point of that being the criterion for notability, that, direct comparisons aside, there is a large bulk of stable articles with, I am sure, fewer hits, edits, and sources, on much less civilised topics. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. —Orlady (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. If there's not a limit of one deletion requests per quarter, there ought to be. htom (talk) 04:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTAGAIN. This isn't a nomination in bad faith, and I'd hope that you don't think it's one :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no idea what your motives are; it was two weeks ago we were doing this. It looks like you didn't look at the talk page at all, or if you did, disruption. htom (talk) 15:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A thoroughly-sourced article that provides more than 100 reliable and verifiable sources demonstrating why bow tie wearing is notable and why individual bow tie wearers are notable within different contexts and milieus. The previous two AfDs all ended in keep, and other than persistent abuse of process, there is no reason for us to be here. Deletion attempt III failed little more than two weeks before as a keep, with no evidence to explain why consensus has changed in the interim. Consensus is a completely worthless pile of junk if persistent stabs will be made until a satisfactory result is reached. Why shouldn't the article be immediately recreated if this abuse ends with a delete? Alansohn (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Again, WP:NOTAGAIN. If this ends with a delete, then recreating the article should be done through a deletion review, any other recreations are deleted. It's not abuse of process if I'd never heard of, or participated in, the original four discussions. Furthermore, the previous three AfDs I'm not concerned about the notability - I'm concerned that the list itself is 'listcruft', that is, it is of interest to a very limited number of people, is unencyclopaedic, i.e. it would not be expected to be included in an encyclopaedia, determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas and determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 05:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • First of all, I offered a clear explanation of why this article fulfills all Notability guidelines. The abuse of process is merely a topper, and you are the one who is abusing process here. This AfD closed as keep two weeks ago. If you disagreed with the close you should be the one taking it to DRV. The one-sided nonsense that a keep can be challenged repeatedly until you get the result that you are certain is the truth, while demanding that a bureaucratic process is needed at DRV to overturn a delete makes the whole consensus process worthless. It is disruption like this that can make Wikipedia so utterly unproductive. If you won't respect the previous two closures as keep why should anyone respect a delete? Alansohn (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • it is of interest to a very limited number of people, Actually, I think it is of interest to more people than the vast majority of Wikipedia articles. It gets 2,500-3,000 hits per month. [44] Twice that of Codfish [45] Just saying. -- Noroton (talk) 04:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - an interesting, useful, well-written article. The fact that the topic is trivial, or about fashion, does not in any way stop us from writing about it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, and I'm inclined to vote keep on any AFD that goes past the third nomination. Also, there is no "original research" unless the article contains facts that only exist on Wikipedia. Squidfryerchef (talk) 06:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll ignore the argument on nomination numbers. But, you see, there is original research here - arbitrary inclusion of people who may have only worn a bow tie once or twice. How often does one have to wear a bow tie for inclusion? Can someone answer me that? OR is it how often they've been pictured wearing a bow tie? That's where the original research is! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, there is no such thing as OR by inclusion. If a reliable source says that X wore a bow tie, then it's not OR to add X to the list. There are arguments about relevance and undue weight that can be brought in, but it's not OR. Squidfryerchef (talk) 07:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP With respects to the nom, consensus was a resounding keep just 2 weeks ago. If this consensus is also a keep, will you bring it back again and again? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTAGAIN. I won't bring it back again and again, no - but I wasn't aware of the previous deletion discussion when I made this. Please don't assume I'm here to destroy your work! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not "my" work to destroy, as I have had nothing to do with the article. And I accept good faith that you brought here unaware that it survived an AFD as recently as 2 weeks ago. However, now that you are aware that it was a resounding keep on October 28, do you still wish to argue for its deletion again so soon? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • And I have not checked yet... but were those who particpated in the AfD 2 weeks ago given a courtesy notification that it had come back so quickly? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:26, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't, and I also notice that the chain of deletes at the start occurred quickly. htom (talk) 15:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Apologies, I didn't realise. But no, I'm going to stick this one out. The reasons were mostly 'I like it' reasons, and none of them have addressed my one major concern - What are the criteria for inclusion? How often must one ear a bow tie? The problem is the same as with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of virgins - there is not, and cannot be, a definite criteria for inclusion. Nearly all men in the western world wear a bow tie at some point, for example with a tuxedo, or as part of fancy dress. Tom Cruise should be included perhaps? Or David Miscavige? Or David Beckham? Perhaps anyone mentioned at this page? Or Eric Idle, for his ridiculously large bow tie? Even Oscar Wilde wore one! Take a look at this page - which ones do we include? Any answer to that will inevitably involve original research/personal points of view - some people will see Eric Idle's as a joke, and not worthy of inclusion, some people will see it as worthy purely because of that. The criteria are vague, and inherently undefinable. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 06:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Again... not my article and I am not (with respects) concerned with WP:WAX arguments for or against, as consensus has thrice now agreed to keep. Perhaps a more definitive guideline for inclusion or exclusion parameters might be reached on the article's talk page...? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • A definite guide for inclusion would be helpful, certainly, as well as a reason why this isn't a list of indiscriminate information. I'm rather shocked at the number of people who are accusing me of abuse of process - I regularly close AfDs, I think I know what the process is. Consensus has not agreed to keep thrice, however - only twice - and twice as 'no consensus'. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • You're correct... what I should have stated is that the article has three times been sent to AfD and three times kept. And regardless of the quibble, its last and resounding keep was just 2 weeks ago... far too soon to even imagine that the conensus had changed. And before you repeat "I did't realize", and with an acceptance of good faith in your actions, you're an Admin and you just wrote that you regularly close AfDs and know what the process is. The perception of abuse is in your return of an article to AfD 2 weeks after a strong close as keep, your lack of courtesy notification to editors who had been involved in the article and/or the last AfD, your repeated use of WAX arguments that run affoul of WP:ATA while chastising their use by article defenders, and your seeming to have have ignored WP:BEFORE... whether intentional or not. The perception when this is done by an Admin who knows the process, is that you were trying to rush this article off of Wiki before its supporters realized it was gone. Again, and with apologies as no accusation is being made... only an explanation to address your being shocked by the number of people speaking toward a perception of "abuse of process" (your words). Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge the useful stuff back into bow tie and delete the list. Some of the notable bow tie wearers (ie, those who wear bow ties as a statement) and their reasons can also be moved back to bow tie, but a list of people who have worn bow ties at one point in their lives is bound to be inexhaustible. howcheng {chat} 07:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is bad form to bring this here again as checking for previous discussions is one of the pre-requisites listed at WP:BEFORE. The nomination's focus upon inclusion criteria is a weak argument since the list is obviously of habitual bow tie-wearers. The claim of OR is false as the article has excellent sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Surprisingly, the introduction to the list provides a reasonable justification for inclusion, with well-known people using the bow tie as a fashion or character statement. Since the choice of wear is often made a point of, coverage of this passes the basic criteria of WP:N. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Procedurally, this AfD is a bad idea because it's only two or three weeks since the last debate closed. As for the article, it defines its terms clearly, includes a discussion of the relevance of its subject matter, is not indiscriminate, classifies its entries in useful ways, and is properly referenced. The frequent wearing of bow ties in the 20th and 21st centuries is a notable cultural phenomenon, rare enough to be distinctive yet common enough not to produce a vanishingly small list. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I was sure this was a delete until I read the article. Provides a clear, sourced criteria for inclusion and sources for those included. Provides sourced information for the article as a social phenomena. --Clay Collier (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the writing isn't perfect (it reads less like a list than it should) and one might find some shreds of original research remaining, but these are issues that can be improved upon. Generally lists may include elements that are not notable in their own right, but perhaps renaming this to ". . . notable bow tie wearers" or something to prevent my uncle Darryl from being included would be in order. I'm also of the mind to drop the small fictional character section.--otherlleft (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep - in addition to my originally-stated reasons, this AfD is clearly a violation of WP:NOTAGAIN. There was clear consensus to keep this article as of 23 October 2008, and there is no basis for arguing that the article should have been improved in that amount of time. The only thing that's embarrassing here is the manner and speed in which the nominator, who as an administrator should be familiar with policies and procedures, brought this article back. I'm reasonably new to the AfD process so it's taken me some time to get up to speed on all the nuances, which is why my thoughts are hereby expanded and clarified.--otherlleft (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - quite frankly, it is simply too soon to bring it back to AfD. Article is disturbingly impressive. WilyD 13:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for nominator - In the future, if you wish to make a good-faith nomination of an article for deletion, you might consider glancing at its talk page first. In this case, there are four prominent boxes that refer to the three prior deletion discussions and one deletion review. The significant amount of discussion here that relates to process could have been avoided by simply clicking the "talk" tab.--otherlleft (talk) 14:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The first section is a bit waffly, and the organisation of the quotations is not always perfect, but this is a far better article than the vast majority on Wikipedia, with a lot of work gone into it to source every single statement. It is not perhaps of universal interest, but with the 'not paper' policy it would be a huge shame to throw out this good work. If you don't like that this is here, try getting your articles of interest in the rest of the encyclopaedia up to this standard before deleting it because some bow tie enthusiasts have put proportionately more effort into their area of interest than you have to yours.

    I would say that there seems to be no original research here at all, except maybe a little bit (far less than in the average article though) in some slight synthesis of sources at the start, but the 'original research' argument is clearly not applicable to the choice of people on the list. I would hate to see this article go because the 'not again' policy were used to openly ignore consensus, or other policies misapplied. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete as per WP:LC items 2, 4, 9, and 10. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • 2. The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
    I would not be so sure... Define very. Certainly, bow ties are not unheard-of, and I think, given that wearing one during the day time is a bit of a statement these days, I find it hard to believe that someone interested in bow ties would not like to see what sort of people wear them.
    4. The content is unverifiable or the underlying concept is non-notable
    Given the number of references, the content (i.e. 'Did so-and-so wear a bow tie as part of their identity?') is certainly verifiable, and the concept itself is so tightly linked to bow ties themselves that the enumeration of bow tie wearers should not be a problem.
    10. Determining membership of the list involves original research or synthesis of ideas.
    9. Determining membership of the list requires adoption of a non-neutral point of view, and reliable sources for avoiding it are not available.
    Determining membership of the list is no harder than determining whether anyone is notable. All notable people, who notably wore bow ties, can be listed here. Either the tie was on or off; there is no value judgement being made here beyond whether anyone was notable for a certain thing (i.e. if we can judge whether Churchill was strongly linked to journalism in his article, or rather quote people who make the link, then there is no difficulty commenting here on the strong associations between him and bow ties).
    —Kan8eDie (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. granted it's not of earth-shattering importance, but then again neither are the thousands of articles on obscure hamlets all over the world, or of individual stations on train lines,bus stops, obscure athletes who finished 16th in the modern heptathlon at the 1932 olympics etc., etc., ad nauseam. but then, i have a bias. it may be the only list on wikipedia for which i qualify.Toyokuni3 (talk) 15:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~ User:Ameliorate! (with the !) (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • don't care, vote remains keep.Toyokuni3 (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "When used correctly though, these comparisons are important" (from the policy page). Please, we do not enhance the discussion by blindly linking to policy pages without justifying. Toyokuni makes a broad point, without falling into the trap of giving specific or otherwise fallaciously subjective judgements, so any attempt to address his point must explain which of and why the comparisons he is making are invalid. He is right to not be 'wikilinked into submission' without someone explaining what is actually with what he said. Similarly, when basically nothing has been said in Ameliorate's and Toyokuni's replies, there is no reason so far for a change in opinion, so I think an admin ought to regard the opinion as still valid, much though some might want it dismissed over nothing more than being stated twice. —Kan8eDie (talk) 18:56, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

  • Very Strong Keep Just based on the fact that there has been such exhausting discussions on this in the prior AfD's, it obviously is a significant enough topic to warrant inclusion. The only thing I can think of is that people want to see it deleted because the title may be a bit too generic. I think this discussion belongs on the page's discussion page as a potential name change, as suggested by MichaelQSchmidt.Shirulashem (talk) 20:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - previous AfDs on this article wrestled with the same subject, and discussion did ensue on the article's talk page with no action being taken. I hope that if yet another consensus is reached to keep this article, it will include consensus to rename as well, perhaps preventing this discussion from occurring again when another nominator fails to read the previous AfDs.--otherlleft (talk) 21:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: With respects, User:Howcheng's "Proposal" discussion has been moved to this AfD's talk page Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Additional Note: On the article's talk page there is a delightfully cogent discussion about renaming the article, as even the use of the word "list" in an article title evokes all kinds of dissention. Since the article itself is far more than a haphazzard list... being a well written and well sourced article that then includes several different and related lists in its body, a renaming should be seriously considered. Let the word "list" be used in the article's sections, but not in the title... as can be understood from the text of WP:LISTS. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 00:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons that I argued for deletion back in Jan 2007. This is an inherently unmaintainable list. The decision to wear a bow tie (or a vest or a button-down shirt or any other article of clothing) is not a useful encyclopedic distinction. The prior discussions have allowed ample opportunity for discussion and resolution yet the article remains fundamentally unimproved. My ability to give it the benefit of doubt has run out.
    Note: From what I can tell, the content about the history of bow-tie wearing was copied in from other pages so I don't think there are any GFDL issues. If that turns out not to be the case, then a protected redirect would be the better answer. Rossami (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you considered the points proposed in WP:DEADLINE? That's the only part of your argument I'm not clear about.--otherlleft (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per almost unanimous keep of 23 Oct 2008, and per WP:GiveItaBreak. Occuli (talk) 22:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This is a highly trivial and indiscriminate list and in my opinion runs afoul of WP:FIVE pillars. Still. coccyx bloccyx(toccyx) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This very vague. The list clearly discriminates based on whether the bow tie was an important part of the wearer's image or not, and you would need to explain which pillar is violated for that argument to carry any weight. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see any real point in this list; nothing really links Pee-wee Herman and Arthur Schlesinger with Robin Day other than their choice of neckwear. This makes it a mere list of coincidences. At the most, the article on the bow tie can note that contemporary western culture links it with a particular sense of style and social attitude, mentioning a few people embodying them - but even then there will be exceptions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • From the article's first paragraph: Well-known people who become associated in the public mind with wearing bow ties can have a powerful positive or negative effect on the popularity of this type of neckwear, according to numerous observers, including writers and bow tie sellers.[2][3] It's a social/business/fashion phenomenon noted by multiple sources and used in industry advertising. That removes the objection that this list is "trivial" or a "mere list of coincidences". Inclusion in the list should be governed by proof that the person is not only notable enough for a Wikipedia article (the general Wikipedia criteria for people lists) but also by proof that the person is known for wearing bow ties. A vast number of items on the list offer just that sourced proof, and I think they all should. That answers the "indiscriminate" objection. I think the lead section would be strengthened by making the criteria more explicit, something which might have prevented a number of the "delete" !votes on this page. a particular sense of style and social attitude -- actually, there seem to be several different senses of style and social attitude, much of which is affected by associations with notable people who wear bow ties. The sources constantly bring this up. Footnote 10 source, for instance. [46]; also Footnote 1 [47] -- Noroton (talk) 06:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. WP:NOT, WP:NOT, and more WP:NOT. This is a trivial list, nothing more, and is utterly unencyclopedic. It's shocking to me that this has already survived three AfDs.  Xihr  22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - what next? List of bald politicians? List of actresses photographed "wearing a little black dress"? NOT, please.  Frank  |  talk  22:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Then perhaps a move is in order after all: List of people known for wearing a bow tie.  Frank  |  talk  02:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; useful information about the social consequences of wearing a bow tie exists in that article; people who wear bow ties and have become associated with them should be noted in their respective article. A list of people who are almost completely and immediately recognizable by their bow tie could possibly be included in the main bow tie article, to which I would not object, but a separate list invites too many editors to add their favorite politician/movie star/notable person who once wore a bow tie to the list. A list is acceptable, but it should never be long enough to not fit on the main bow tie article. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you review the quotes beside most items or look at the footnotes for most of the items without descriptions beside them, you'll find that nearly every item on the list is of a person known for constantly wearing a bow tie. That implicit criterion should be explicitly stated near the top of the article. Nevertheless, it is the criterion (along with general notability). You can't fit all that in the bow tie article. -- Noroton (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the list and place the content about the cultural stuff in the bow tie article. If that requires a redirect, then fine. The people and fictional characters on this list have nothing in common past having chosen to wear (or in the case of cartoon characters, been drawn wearing) a particular style of tie. This is not an encyclopedic relationship. Otto4711 (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is absurd. What's next, a list of people who've worn top hats? Fedoras? Swords? These are all things that have been highly fashionable at some point. Aggregations of people in all those milieus, along with people outside of them who were anachronistic in their dress sense, is indiscriminate and pointless. RayAYang (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This, and many similar arguments above and below, are well wide of the mark. This list does not include those wearing bow ties as part of black tie, or Victorian morning dress. This is a list of people wearing bow ties as an individualistic statement, not as some sort of mass conformism. I think it is clear that, if a minority still notably wore swords these days, it would be a hefty statement, and that the list article for that would exist. Please read the first lead paragraph before commenting and just assuming that for those on the list, wearing it was simply conforming with what was 'highly fashionable'. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is clearly a well-referenced article. It is notable that the wearing of bow tie conveys a specific fashion statement. It is also notable that Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, etc. wore bow ties. However Wikipedia:Notability states "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." In this case, the topic "List of bow tie wearers" does not have these reliable sources. Therefore it is not notable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 23:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not many Wikipedia lists would meet that notability criteria. Actually, articles on bow tie wearing constantly list numerous notable people known for wearing bow ties. Multiple sources that mention many bow tie wearers are quoted and referenced in the article, and those articles give substantial coverage to just that subject of notables-who-wear-bow-ties: A dozen mentioned in Footnote 10's source; seven in Footnote 6's source. Wikipedia, of course, has improved on these numbers. -- Noroton (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "What about X?" is not an appropriate argument. Those sources are about the "fashion of bow tie wearing", not merely lists of who wears them. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't a "What about X" argument to say that Wikipedia's ongoing, longstanding, universal practice is not to demand that a stand-alone list be matched somewhere else in the universe by another list. The "topic" of this list article is "notable people who are also known for wearing bow ties" and that topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources referenced in the article -- and even the articles I just mentioned have lists. The article meets WP:N, hands down. -- Noroton (talk) 16:36, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is crazy! Since when has the list itself had to be notable? Please read the guidelines the deletionists seem so ready to brandish (Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Lists_of_people). The key point is the notability of the members of the list, not the list itself. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep I respect the classic view of what counts as encyclopedic (e.g., all the stuff one can find in say our cultural grand-daddy theMicropædia). I'm not however being paid by the Britannica company (nor would I imagine would anyone else participating in this discussion). There are things in wikipedia that re-define what is encyclopedic and this article like exploding whales is one of them. So Strong Keep per Wikipedia:Department of Fun#Humor. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, another case of people confusing "it looks pretty, and it's referenced, thus it's delete-proof" without noting that the opening sections to "establish" notability are only in this article as a coat rack for the regular bow tie article (where it has been admitted they were moved to this article because they were too trivial for the bow tie article) and that the references only state that X wore a bow tie at some point in their lives, without associating one individual with another. This is not a list that should be saved because it is amusing or because it is in the widest sense an... interesting concept... using such reasons to save it are pretty much invoking a version of IAR to ignore that the article itselfs foundation is non-existent. –– Lid(Talk) 00:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • they were moved to this article because they were too trivial for the bow tie article I wrote some, or most, of those opening paragraphs. My memory could fail me here, but I thought I researched it myself and wrote it up for the list article. I think elements that influence bow tie sales are not too trivial for Wikipedia, given what Wikipedia covers. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we should have a List of people who object to useless lists of things on Wikipedia.  Xihr  00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't that be a category of Wikipedians? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Deletionist_Wikipedians htom (talk) 06:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, since this is an indiscriminate collection of information. If a bow tie is notable for some specific person, it should be mentioned in that person's article. What's next here, List of people that like to listen to a specific ABBA song? --Tone 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is not a good argument: by the same logic, we would outlaw all list articles. What are you saying: List of battles since 2001 is not a useful list, since the notable fact that each battle occured after 2001 is listed on the individual page for that battle? The entire point of lists is to save trawling through thousands of articles to find which battles did occur after 2001, or who did wear bow ties notably. To suggest a merger back to bow ties article is one thing, but to say that we should merge this back into the articles of the individual people on the list misses the point of list articles in the first place, especially one like this accompanied by useful commentary. —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the keeps above, and per WP:NOTAGAIN (where it says to avoid arguments that go "I do not care that it survived three AFDs in the past week, I'm going to nominate it every day until it is deleted. – Trytryagain 16:32, 29 May 2007 (UTC)") -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:39, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you had read the keeps above, you would notice that I wasn't aware of the previous deletion discussions, and haven't been involved with this article at all before now. That argument has not once been used by me. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and instead of quoting policies and guidelines, which everyone else has already done, let me offer this rationale: When I look at this, it just makes sense. Bow ties are fairly uncommon and a statement in themselves. News sources will even note when a politician wears one, which clearly tells me THEY think it is notable. Without looking up a single criteria for inclusion, I am confident that this belongs here because it improves Wikipedia. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't imagine how many articles we would have if notability were based on what "they" think is notable. This is a community...and the community decides what is notable, not news sources.  Frank  |  talk  02:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not exactly The Nutshell of WP:N clearly states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. Since "they" includes news sources, it is "they" that decide what is notable, not us. We are a tertiary source. We don't "decide", we document, source and verify what "they" have decided is notable enough to warrant writing a book or article about, within our guidelines. The very definition of notability is when news and other reliable sources provide significant coverage. Literally. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 03:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not all there is to it, though. Many people are listed in a newspaper when they die, either with a short obituary or even just a death notice. Does that make them notable? Not by itself. Sure, Tucker Carlson has been known to wear a bow tie, but if that were all, he wouldn't rate an article here. On the other hand, the note that he has worn a bow tie is worthy of mention - in his article. To have a separate article listing him (among many others) doesn't make sense to me. And, I just found out he no longer wears one...is that another article...List of former bow tie wearers? Frank  |  talk  02:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only has Tucker Carlson worn the occasional bow tie, articles have been written in reliable and verifiable sources about his bow-tie wearing practices. The 2005 article "A Red Flag That Comes in Many Colors" in The New York Times is primarily about Carlson's bow tie preference, with the remainder about other notables who wear bow ties. As we base our notability decisions on how the media covers the world, this is a subject that has been deemed notable. The reliable and verifiable sources support this article. Alansohn (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but the threshold for inclusion isn't just coverage in reliable sources, but also notability. I don't think that one or even a few articles about Carlson and his bowties makes it worthy of an article by itself - and that's the key. "Significant coverage" is different from "it appeared in the Times". Yes, he's notable;  Done he's got an article. Yes, his bow tie wearing is notable;  Done it's mentioned in his article. That should be the end of the line.  Frank  |  talk  02:47, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete How is this article different from List of people who wear clothing? Per Wikipedia is not an an indiscriminate collection of information and Wikipedia is not a directory. Also, people may like it, it doesn't mean it's notable or not original research or synthesis. Fraud talk to me 03:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:NOT indiscriminate information. -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 03:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and when "colour shades of apple sauce" is referred to as a "signature" or "trademark" element of the public images of a collection of notable people, I'll support that list, too. As I said above (reply to FT2), WP:PILLAR #1, sentence #1, tells us Wikipedia is meant to cover topics of specialist encyclopedias, and notable people wearing bow ties is a worthy article in a specialist encyclopedia on fashion -- for business, art and cultural reasons. The list is not indiscriminate because notable people influence bow tie wearing by others (as this article states), and bow-tie wearing in turn seems to affect the public image of those notable people so much that the continual wearing itself is frequently commented upon: The bow tie is such an integral part of Tsang's identity that he is nicknamed "bow tie Tsang," according to the Associated Press. The list is important enough for inclusion in Wikipedia. I don't think the fact that it's also fun should be held against it. -- Noroton (talk) 04:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Noroton, can I ask: Would you support List of people who wear hats? If it was equally well-sourced? This is a serious question - hat-wearing is a key characteristic of many people - hats are not often seen in this day and age, and haven't been popular - in Europe at least - since 1949. Hats say as much about someone as bow ties do, and I think the two are comparable (see [48] for potential sources). Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:43, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
when "colour shades of apple sauce" is referred to as a "signature" or "trademark" element of the public images of a collection of notable people, I'll support that list, too. Applesauce, hats, whatever. Got my support. If Winston Churchill was "known for his trademark cowboy hat" or "John F. Kennedy was known for his signature tam o' shanter", I'd vote "keep" for that list as a useful fashion-encyclopedia-type article. Especially if JFK's headgear prompted American males to go out and buy them and wear them. That seems like a social phenomenon important enough for Wikipedia to cover, given the level of prominence of the average Wikipedia article. -- Noroton (talk) 05:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and FYI to other prospective commenters: Due to extensive removal of content by Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (the nominator), this article is now very different from the article that was nominated for deletion. --Orlady (talk) 05:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC) It appears to me that this AfD and the subsequent massive modifications to the article are a case of disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. --Orlady (talk) 05:51, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this article is deleted, it would become much more difficult to do this crossword puzzle. [49] Come now, deletionists. See the error of your ways. -- Noroton (talk) 06:59, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Waving the brush of anyone arguing for its removal as deletionism seems to ignore that every delete reason given, every one, has included the topic of triviality. No keep argument has said anything resembling a refutation that this is not trivial, and including such links (even as a joke) that it is a solver of crosswords really doesn't aid in trying to illustrate the article is neither trivial nor indiscriminate collection of triviality. –– Lid(Talk) 09:10, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The topic is clearly non-trivial since we have numerous sources which discuss the topic specifically. Our personal opinions of the topic's importance are irrelevant - we go by the sources. The topic not indiscriminate either. I had no difficulty finding another good source to add to the article just now. We use editorial commonsense in selecting such sources in a discriminate way, since Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the following:
  1. Mentions which used Wikipedia as a source
  2. Mentions which were unsourced
  3. Sources which had only a trivial mention
  4. Sources which, as we have agreed on, are original research, such as "Mr X is wearing a bow tie in picture Y, therefore he often wears bow ties and is eligible for inclusion".
If anything, I think that improves the article, by increasing the overall quality of the sources you're using. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No keep argument has said anything resembling a refutation that this is not trivial Colonel Warden has addressed "trivial" in the sense that WP:N addresses that term, but Lid, I think you may have meant it in the sense of "unserious". But Wikipedia commonly covers topics relating to business (as this does -- the bow tie industry, a part of the fashion industry) and that is a serious/nontrivial topic. Multiple sources say that notable people wearing bow ties is an influence on bow tie sales and on the perceptions that people have of bow tie wearing. It isn't hard to imagine this topic being the focus of a paper written by a student in a fashion school. If, as asserted by the sources, there are various cultural symbols wrapped up in bow tie wearing that come from the various people known for wearing bow ties, then an extensive list -- not just a few examples -- is justified. Ultimately, Colonel Warden is on the mark anyway: Wikipedia notability policy identifies what's important enough for a WP article: a sufficient number of reliable sources. -- Noroton (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the "Attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" section into bow tie, since this is clearly encyclopedic information that would be appropriate in that article, but I don't think a list of bow tie wearers is encyclopedic. Hut 8.5 11:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A merge is actually a good idea. --Tone 12:05, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Excellently presented, high-quality, well referenced article; a model of what crappy trivia articles/lists should look like. You're going after the best article of this genre, which seems counterproductive.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 11:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge WP:BOWTIECRUFT.--Koji† 16:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering the "indiscriminate list" complaint. I answered this above, but as I looked further, I found quite a few editors repeating it. The list is not indiscriminate. To get on the list, a person must be both notable by Wikipedia standards and be known for constantly wearing bow ties. No one else should be on the list. It's a simple criteria and it is met with sourcing almost throughout the article (if you don't see the justification in the wording beside the name, look at the footnote). The wording in the lead states the criteria. -- Noroton (talk) 16:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How do you define 'being known for constantly wearing bow ties'? Is once per month enough, or once per week? Or does it have to be every time he wears clothes? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When a reliable source states that a person is "known for wearing bow ties" or has "a signature bow tie" or wears his "trademark bow tie" the assertion is being made that the person is notable for bow tie wearing. We don't need to have a source saying a fact was measured in a test tube in order to cite the information. Constant bow tie wearing is sourceable information. -- Noroton (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is a picture of the professor in question wearing a bow tie on his university page a reliable source? Or is it self-published? How do you know that he constantly wears bow ties, by quoting a single photograph - in some cases, a photograph on Wikipedia? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't consider that adequate sourcing. In the past, editors have marked inadequate sourcing with a citation-needed tag and, after some weeks or months, moved the item to the talk page. I've done that myself when I was active in the article. That's a content question, no an article-deletion question. The list really is maintainable and doesn't have to have everyone's Uncle Darryl in it. -- Noroton (talk) 17:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering the "not encyclopedic" complaint. As WP:PILLAR notes (first pillar, first sentence), Wikipedia aims to have content that would be in both a general encyclopedia and specialist encyclopedias. The effect of notable bow tie wearers on bow tie sales and fashion, as noted by the sources, shows that this would be a fit article in a fashion encyclopedia. Also, the article has in fact been used as an encyclopedia article, providing information for this newspaper article, which obviously got the information from the "Journalists" section of the list:
Sioux City Journal, June 15, 2008: NBC News economics reporter Irving R. Levine, according to Wikipedia, began wearing a bow tie in 1994 when he delivered a commencement address. "I needed help in tying it," he said. The same Web site reported that Central College (of Pella, Iowa) graduate Harry Smith of CBS used to make his bow tie fashion statements on television in Denver before going to CBS nationally. Once there, the network executives asked him to retire his shorter ties as Charles Osgood had cornered CBS' bow tie market.
(actually, the reporter misread the Levine information, but let's not quibble -- he meant well) -- Noroton (talk) 17:00, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge useful content into Bow tie and/or the relevant biography per WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. This list provides no useful information, and could possibly include just about every singe person on the planet. Dendodge TalkContribs 17:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1st sentence in the article states the discriminating criteria, see my comment at 16:44; my comment just above at 17:00 answers the "not useful" argument. WP:USEFUL: Usefulness is a subjective judgment and should be avoided in deletion debates unless it supports a cogent argument. -- Noroton (talk) 17:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to remind you that merging material requires the history to be preserved per the GFDL. Deleting the page before or after merging would therefore be against policy. - Mgm|(talk) 12:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article establishes criteria for inclusion making it not indiscriminate (people where wearing a bow tie is a notable characteristic of theirs), it is well sourced and verifiable. If the criteria is not being followed then it should be addressed by editing not deletion. If reliable sources find wearing a bow tie to be a distinguishing characteristic then that establishes notability for the topic - that it is how we (should?) determine a topic is discriminate or indiscriminate not by a subjective judgement of the importance, which imo is what some delete opinions are arguing. Davewild (talk) 18:34, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answering the "It's an embarassment" complaint DS at 00:43, 14 Nov and JuJube, 8 minutes later, made this complaint, and they're entitled to their opinion, which may be implicit in other comments. On the other hand, all the "Keep" comments except Fat Man's imply the opposite. In addition to the Sioux City Journal newspaper report above, this Wikipedia article has been commented on elsewhere on the Web and in ways that don't exactly hurt the reputation of Wikipedia:
    • Washington Post "Celebritology Live" blogger Liz Kelly, Oct. 18, 2008: This is an interesting list.
    • J-Walk blog (October 28, 2008): Another fine entry at Wikipedia: List of bow tie wearers. It's a distinguished list.
    • The article was the featured link for the "Fried Chicken Buffet" blog for August 1, 2008.
    • "Blogging the Renaissance" April 8, 2008, see the second comment by "Calantha": (I do love Wikipedia. How did we all survive for so many years without an easily -accessible and -updatable list of famous bow tie wearers?) ...
I couldn't find any disparaging mentions on the web, unless you interpret Calantha's as negative -- but she demonstrated how encyclopedically useful she found the article. -- Noroton (talk) 18:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I started reading the {{afd}} first. And, from it, I got the impression that the article was bereft of references. It isn't far from it. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As in some other {{afd}}s some of those in the delete party assume it is obvious why articles on things they consider beneath notice should be deleted. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Popular culture can be far from trivial. It is important to cover it because the wikipedia is read by those who are not native speakers of English, people outside the mainstream culture of the anglosphere. In addition these fads that high-brows consider beneath notice come and go, and not documenting them, when they are current, and misunderstood, makes references to them opaque when they have dropped from the public consciousness. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. —Geo Swan (talk) 19:27, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This may just be me, but considering that most of the 'keep' votes in previous AfDs have come from major contributors, does anyone else detect a slight hint of WP:OWN? Remember to WP:AAGFChase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 19:28, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a major contributor (first edit after my first comments herein), and I feel that comment was made in bad faith, and frankly, as an administrator you should know better. However, since you admitted that you don't know enough to look for previous deletion debates prior to nomination, it appears to be a pattern. The appearance is based solely on your contributions here, but perhaps taking a break is in order - you seem to be taking the existence of this article quite personally.--otherlleft (talk) 19:58, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise - I think perhaps you may have read my version of the statement with the wrong formatting. I did not mean to strike anything through, instead it was meant to be supertext. I meant no bad faith through bringing this to light, but I think it might be an issue, considering the main keep votes are from major contributors, and that the main delete votes are from uninvolved editors in good standing, as well as uninvolved administrators in good standing. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should also add that I might be assuming bad faith here, and for that I apologise. It may have had something to do with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Possibly threatening email, which has unnerved me slightly. Again, I apologise if I'm assuming bad faith, but I think it's a valid argument to bring forth. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Fat Man. Most Only lucid keep argument I've ever encountered in an AfD. X MarX the Spot (talk) 20:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Random break[edit]

  • Note — I have started a thread at the village pump to hopefully spark some discussion in possibly making changes to that guideline. I have noticed that there have been many AFDs like this, and perhaps we need a change in policy or at the least some sort of community-wide discussion (I was hoping eventually an RFC provided there is enough interest in having such a discussion) so we can have a better consensus of what is considered an acceptable list instead of having the same two schools of thought locking up against each other every other AFD. MuZemike (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am happy, at least, that this discussion is leading to the article being tightened and cleaned up :-) Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:01, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep After laughing to myself at the very concept of such a worthless article, and after toying with the idea of !voting "delete", I was on the verge of deciding I really didn't care much one way or the other and going somewhere else when I saw a comment about The Fat man. Having come across his erudite comments before I scrolled up to read them and found such praise of the article, that against my better judgement I actually went and looked at it. GIVE ME BREAK. Why is this up for deletion just a couple of weeks after it was last here? It is an excellent article. There should be a speedy close on this in light of three previous AfDs. Try again in a years time, you can't keep renominating it every week. SpinningSpark 21:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see above: I did not know this was up for deletion three weeks previously when I nominated it, I conferred with other admins and we agreed that it was listcruft, and should go up for AfD. A list - especially one which, if you look at the sources quoted - does not meet WP:RS even in the broadest sense, has no place even in a fashion encyclopaedia. In addition, none of the concerns raised in the previous AfDs have been seen to. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And these "other Admins" did not look at the talk page or article history either? Did they, like you yourself stated above, "know the process"? The "concerns" of the previous AfD's resulted in the article being kept... and two weeks ago with a resounding KEEP. Your opinion as to the worth of the article flags in the face of the strongest of consensus to keep.... and a consensus which hasnot changed since October 28. And continung to speak disparigingly of the article as if it were an indiscriminate collection of trivia, when it is in fact a humourous and well sourced article, feels most definitely of WP:UGH... specially since you feel so strongly about removing it that you answer just about every comment made at this discussion. This is not a vote. Wiki is not a beaucracy. You have repeated and repeated and repeated and repeated your points ad-naseum. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:13, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wah, calm down, chap. The last AfD was voted on almost entirely by contirbutors to articles, or avowed inclusionists. In this debate, we do at least have a wider spectrum of views from uninvolved people, on both the delete/merge and keep sides. The consensus has changed, as I think you will see if you add up the respective arguments made by people from both sides. It is no longer a 6-1 stand, indeed, it is much closer now to 50-50. The last editor who closed this - who, let's note, was not an admin - closed with the reason The result was For some reason that I cannot comprehend, this is a keep Ah well... The problems brought to light in the last discussions , on the talk page, and here, have still not been addressed, and the contributors to the article are all denying any attempt at discussion of alternative options, such as a renaming or clarifying of criteria. I am repeating my points because no-one is addressing them adequatly, and, oddly enough, I am not the only person repeating them. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:45, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a frequent contributor to this article who has repeatedly supported its retention, I wish to register my resentment of the implication that my involvement with this article represents some sort of conflict of interest. Not only am I not male, but I have never worn a bowtie, no male in my family wears one, and I have no known connection with anybody in the business of selling, photographing, advertising, or recycling bowties. I don't recall how I first became aware of the article, but I believe my first involvement with it was in June 2007 when I added Chris Whittle to the list because I was interacting with his article and he is well-known as a habitual bow-tie wearer. After that edit, the article ended up on my watchlist, and several weeks later I spent time trying to fix some of the problems with it -- adding sources for unsourced entries, reorganizing, alphabetizing, adding images, etc. Since that time, I've continued to keep an eye on the article and have spent time maintaining it. I confess that I have often found it amusing to search for sources for the unsourced names that other users have added to this list. Unlike many other lists in articles I've worked on, for almost all of the people added to this list there turns out to be solid evidence that they belong on the list, and the references I find often include amusing photos and anecdotes. Furthermore, because there's nothing particularly controversial or potentially defamatory about a person being identified as a bowtie wearer, I have not felt it necessary to apply as strong a standard of proof to this list as in many other lists I've worked on. I guess I should have anticipated that someone like User:Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry would show up and insist on the same rigor in sourcing that is applied in (for example) List of HIV-positive people, but I don't believe that the article necessitates that degree of rigor. Accordingly, if an anonymous user adds a notable person's name to the article and I find (for example) a formal portrait in which that person is wearing an outlandish bowtie, I conclude that the person truly is "known for wearing bowties," so I insert a link to the portrait as a source and leave the name in the article. --Orlady (talk) 23:35, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The story we heard earlier was that you had no idea that there had been another AfD. Now it turns out that you had analyzed the previous AfDs and determined that you knew who all of the "avowed inclusionists" were and were therefore entitled to disregard their opinion. Does this mean that all of the thousands of articles deleted by participation from "avowed deletionists" will now be restored? Alansohn (talk) 22:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Once I was informed that the article had had a previous AfD only 3 weeks prior, I checked it, was asked to review my AfD, and declined. Please believe me when I say that this AfD was not in bad faith! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:08, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What I am seeing here, is that you will not accept consensus, unless it agrees with you. WP:WAX is WP:WAX. WP:ATA is WP:ATA. Fun stuff. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:48, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Micheal, I'm trying to be civil here: I'll happily accept consensus, but the above discussion is leaning towards no concensus, or merge. Both sides have been making fallacious arguments: i don't like it, It's interesting, It looks good, notability inheritance, allornothing... What I'm after is a discussion which encompasses people who aren;t involved with the article. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My aplogies. I read it differently. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:21, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have never edited the article, and only came here when I saw the notice on a friend's talk page. I felt that it would be risible that such an outstanding article, proving its notability by the plethora of references, should be deleted. I find many of the arguments above for keep highly persuasive, and have made several replies here myself in defence of this article. If you want the thoughts of neutral by-standers, I can happily say that this one finds the feeling against this article frankly incomprehensible. Every argument for the deletion seems to have been rebutted, and in many cases several times when the same mistakes have been wheeled out by multiple people who seem to think that a one-liner contributing nothing new is a worthwhile addition (see: not a vote). —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Kan8edie - are you neutral? Your self-declared interests are clothing-only. One might be concerned that you were not concerned about WP:N or WP:LIST, but instead about articles of clothing. hardly neutral, that would be like me arguing to keep a page on the Royal Navy! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That list was clearly incomplete, and had just a sampling of clothing articles as one section, to let me follow a partial watchlist when not logged in. My recent edit summaries show the wider scope this account has always had, for example my largest work this week has been on composers. I have not had interest in this particular page, which is the point. While you might well have a conflict of interest with editing articles about your employer, it is impossible to demand that clothing articles be written by those who not wear any. Having an interest in this area merely qualifies me to edit with more confidence in this area. Besides, what is your point anyway? I edit in this area => I want to see clothing articles improve => ??? => I might want to keep an article in this area when it would not improve the encyclopaedic coverage of clothing (which, I think, you seem to be implying is the case). Further, by starting off this process, you have displayed a much stronger attachment to the article than I have, and so are certainly under no less conflict of interest than I am. —Kan8eDie (talk) 02:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whats next, List of people who wear bowler hats? How much more ridiculous can you get??!!??!! JBsupreme (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, but I think there might be some slight confusion here. I realise that the notice at the top of the page saying "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers" is in too large a font to be readable, but I hate to inform you that actually this debate is about bow ties, not bowler hats. (See also: WP:WAX) —Kan8eDie (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But surely, list of bowler hat wearers and list of bow tie wearers are related in some way? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quite, and I would have no objection to a list of post-1960s bowler hat wearers, if the list were too long to fit onto the bowler hats article and had to be forked out. On the other hand, apart from hunters and Trinity porters, I have never seen bowler hats worn, while a few politicians and fashionistas do wear bow ties, so the situation is rather different; merging here would make bow ties ridiculously long, while the bowler hats have so few wearers that the article does not have a section at all.
JBsupreme is wrong to imply that WP:WAX arguments would somehow forcibly justify the existence of a bowler hats list. Despite being qualitatively similar, the quantitative link is not there (there are proportionately orders of magnitude in difference between the quantity of coverage in sources for recent bow tie wearing and recent bowler hat wearing). —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is not obvious to me that the conception underlying the list of bow-tie-wearers is fundamentally different from List of HIV-positive people and List of poliomyelitis survivors (surely there's no expectation that these people have anything in common other than their health concerns). I don't know about bowler-hat-wearers as a topic, but I can imagine some other lists of notable people who are strongly identified with some sort of popular culture phenomenon. One such would be List of amateur golfers, to include Bob Hope, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, and others whose golfing hobby is or was widely documented and may possibly have influenced history in some way. Another example would be People associated with coonskin caps, but that topic does not require a separate list, since it fits easily into Coonskin cap. --Orlady (talk) 19:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indiscriminate list. What is this list in support of? There's no such article as Bow tie wearers, nor can I imagine how there could be, but until there is, this is a list in support of a non-concept. --CalendarWatcher (talk) 23:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This list is in support of bow ties, as should be obvious. There are vast numbers of lists with names which do not mirror their parent article's name exactly. —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research. --Carnildo (talk) 23:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most statements, and all entries on the list, are sourced. What part precisely is original research? —Kan8eDie (talk) 00:07, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Er, what's the point? Why do we need to list people who wear bow ties?
    This information could be better placed on the individual bios, and on Bow tie. Most readers wouldn't look for a list of bow tie wearers to research Winston Churchill, but if it's significant that he wears a bow tie, then that information belongs on his article. I reserve judgment on whether that information belongs on Wikipedia, however it would be more helpful on the individual bios and summarized on Bow tie.
    The argument that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is invalid. The existence of reliable sources is an argument for existence for biographies and theories, not for lists. It is a requirement for lists, but not a justification of existence. While sources exist showing what President Bush is wearing when he makes his speeches, List of President Bush's outfits is not a useful list.
    A list is only necessary where a list provides more information than an article could. If a list exists, it should exist to provide a list. If the primary information offered is a list of people, then a list is acceptable. If the primary information is an explanation of the social implications of bow ties, it should be merged into Bow tie. If the primary information is a comment on the bow-tie-wearing habits of Winston Churchill, then it should be on Winston Churchill.
    And don't even think about Bow ties in popular culture. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • what's the point? The point is that notable people influence others and therefore, among the 2.5 million some odd articles in Wikipedia, there's room for an article that details just which notable people have been constantly wearing them and may have had their own public image influenced by them -- it's the type of thing we can source well because it is remarked on so very often. Most readers wouldn't look for a list of bow tie wearers to research Winston Churchill -- no, but 3,000 readers a month look at the article, probably because they have a curiosity about bow ties and who wears them. The argument that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is the way Wikipedia's WP:N guideline works. Noroton (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Careful you don;t stumble into OR yourself there. They might equally be looking at the article because it's amusing, and because it's registered on StumbleUpon, which itself will send thousands of legitimate users there whether they like it or not. I would also note that 'this is sourced, therefore it is notable' is a gross over-simplification of how WP:N works. Furthermore, your argument doesn't mention the three problems that ST47 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) brings up. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 02:01, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after merging anything useful to Bow tie per many arguments above. Verbal chat 00:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please, say something if you have something to say. This is not a vote. I would hate to think that anyone were under the impression that the process at the end involves counting up the number of delete or keep marks in the margin. Both 'sides' seem unable to convince each other, however many policy pages are linked, but this is not solved by trying to turn this into a numbers game. Incidentally, if we want to play the counting game, I notice that the number of argument-less posts in favour of delete outweighs those in favour of keep, which might indicate something about the priorities placed on constructive debate (though this in no way of course smears those in favour of either views who have provided good points). —Kan8eDie (talk) 03:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You can't delete something after merging it, the history has to be retained after mergers for GFDL reasons. Hut 8.5 13:24, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    To expand, I support the deletion/merge and redirect reasoning given by the nom and many other contributors to this page. I haven't "voted", I have voiced my support for the deletion per policy and the good of the project. I'm not on any "side" - wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. I have trouble assuming good faith from someone who calls someone's statement a vote, and "smears" them in the way you are doing. I suggest you have a look at our civility policy and personal attacks policy - I'm sure you know where they are. Attacking me to then explicitly note how many people have "voted" each way is dishonest - this is not a vote; it's about policies and what is good for the project. This page is not good for the project. I suggest you remove your comment and "tally" of "votes". Verbal chat 13:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any tally of votes that you speak of. And again, you can't delete and merge because it violates the GFDL 99.99% of the time. I also don't see any personal attacks. And we don't remove comments in an AFD in general, we strike them. Did you mean this comment to go here or just misunderstand the other editors comments and policy and the GFDL? DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:41, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry for the way tone is hard to convey when typing. I apologise for any insensitivity, and can confirm I was not intending to accuse or smear you. I withdraw any negative labeling you feel my comments may have applied, but stand by exact meaning of what I said. For example, by writing 'side' (with quotes) I was trying to show that I was not supporting any categorisation into sides, and my comments were (I hope clearly) relying on my first statement that this is not a vote (it would be hard to argue from the first line of my reply that I somehow thought that any tally did matter). Indeed, there was no tally given, and my description of your reply as a vote is no more than WP:NOTVOTE/WP:PERNOM support. —Kan8eDie (talk) 14:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Has this gone on long enough or does someone need to invoke Godwin's law and get it over with? It is starting to sound like the same arguments over and over. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 02:59, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. -- Raven1977 (talk) 03:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this defies sound categorization. Let's start with a good list-type article, the one on 100 meter world record holders [[50]]. This is a great one. It's specific and narrowly-defined. It's also helpful that making it on this list establishes the notability of a person. A bad list would be one for "people who have competed in a 100 meter race." Now, there are some lists that might be trivial and written for amusements sake but might be worth keeping because they categorize something unusual. A list of "People who cut off one of their own limbs for instance. Bow-tie wearing says nothing about an individual. Blacks, whites, atheists, fundamentalists all wear them. Any argument that could be made for including a "list of bow-tie wearers" in an encyclopedia would serve equally well to argue for the inclusion of lists like "people who prefer boxers to briefs, "people who wear baseball hats" (with subcategories for "conventional," "backwards," and "askew") and "people who like cats" (sub-cats "moggie lovers" and "fancy lovers). Etc. This way lies the madness of indiscriminate categorization.Bali ultimate (talk) 03:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Very well researched with encyclopedic information supported by reliable sources. It is not an indiscriminate list. The previous AfD with concensus to keep was less than a month ago. It is appropriate for editors to oppose a re-nomination that does not give enough time to improve the article. McWomble (talk) 05:18, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • All the time in the world isn't going to help this article. Hopefully we won't need a fifth go round of this. JBsupreme (talk) 09:29, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this article is the very essence of WP:IAR to which you Jimbo Wannabes aspire. It's wrong. It britches all of our dry-as-dust rules; WP:OR, WP:SYN all that shit. Strictly speaking it should be deleted in accordance with the nomination.
But WP:IAR is precisely the point here. If the Objectivist Pornographer was here he'd be leading the charge to preserve this luscious morsel. This article should persist because it's the exception that proves the fucking rule. It's beautifully written; shapely of par and alluring of phrase. This is the archetypal not-article. X MarX the Spot (talk) 09:50, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good comment, but it leans more towards 'move to BJAODN' than deleting or keeping, and I'm not sure if you meant that! Sadly, it's written like an editorial, which is why it looks so alluring - and any attempt to make it more encyclopaedic is met with resistance. That said, I'm not sure you know the meaning of 'exception that proves the rule'. 'Prove', in that phrase, is analogous to 'test' - this article is indeed testing Wikipedia's rules, and people are finding it wanting. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Keeping WP:NOTAGAIN in mind, the last AfD was just a few weeks ago and consensus was a resounding keep. Consensus can change but some time must be given to allow editors to address any concerns that brought up the previous AfD in the first place. Besides that I'd think overall the article is well researched and encyclopedic and should be kept. --Banime (talk) 15:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Banime, I understand your point - but when I go and remove poorly sourced entries on the article, they are reverted on sight. Remember that well researched is not a criteria for inclusion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 20:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Has it occurred to you that your deletions, as the proposer of the deletion of the entire article, are being looked at with an assumption of good faith, examined, and reverted in good faith? htom (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CML,ITC, is it your intention to harass every single keep in this AfD? You've had your say when you made the proposal, now shut the #### up and let other people speak. SpinningSpark 21:36, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • CML I think he is worried that you are bludgeoning the process. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:05, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thanks, Dennis - I'm not sure how I would have responded to that comment! Me speaking doesn't stop other people from doing so, I didn't think there was anything wrong with what I was doing... Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well when you reply to every Keep/Delete in an AfD it usually looks badly upon your position, especially when you are just repeating the same things over again. I've made this mistake as well before, its best just to state your position then let consensus work, and only reply on certain remarks that need to be clarified or if you have new evidence or another idea. --Banime (talk) 22:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply Banime got me in an edit conflict, but he is right. This is the reason I wrote WP:BLUDGEON. I don't think you are doing anything in bad faith, or intentionally bludgeoning the process, but you kinda are slapping it a bit, even if innocently. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 22:31, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's important to keep in mind that a link to WP:WAX doesn't immediately render someone's argument moot (despite how much you may/may not agree with the essay).--Koji† 19:53, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Entirely trivial Mayalld (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. As the references in the article show, bow-tie wearing has been treated as a notable characteristic by many reliable sources. Reliable sources are the way we determine notability, not subjective judgements. To address the nominator's points, this is not original research, as it is well sourced, and it is not an indiscriminate collection of information as it lists notable people/characters who have been noted by reliable sources as bow tie wearers, not everyone who has ever worn a bow tie. To the question "how many times must one wear a bow tie in order to be included?" the answer is "enough times to be referred to as a bow tie wearer in reliable sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Before I comment further - I have several questions with regards to this article. I hope someone can be kind enough to take the time to answer them :)
    • What is the criteria for inclusion in this article? Many of the people on the list appear to be simply those that "have worn a bow tie". Indeed, their respective articles make no mention of their favouring this type of clothing. If their choice of neckwear is not notable there, then why here?
    • In an era when bowtie wearing was commonplace, and a social norm (the inter-war era) - what makes a person from said era notable for wearing one?
    • Also, if this list is considered notable, then is it reasonable for a corresponding list for every conceivable accessory and item of clothing to exist?
  • Is there a possible alternative to deletion, such as defining stringent criteria for inclusion, or finding a peer-reviewed source for this list (Youtube videos and the term "is pictured wearing..." are NOT credible sources)? - Sarah Reavenhall 78.150.21.55 (talk) 23:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC) — 78.150.21.55 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • (1) As I understand it, those included are those who are both notable (in the Wikipedia sense of that word) and known for wearing bow ties when it is not required. Bow ties worn with formal wear should not "count"; for photos, they should be of the subject in a situation where his wearing a necktie would not be commented upon. I assume that their articles do not mention their choices in neckware as a matter of common courtesy. (2) It was more common then (I'm assuming WW1 and WW2) but a minority practice. Previous to WW1 it might have been the social norm. (3) If their wearing is commented upon in RS, perhaps it is. Part of fashion is the fickleness of "taste" and "social norms". (4) I'll agree, to a certain extent, that "pictured/videoed" is not always good evidence; but if they show that the subject is doing so when his wearing a necktie would not be remarked upon, they might be, and a number of them, with different bow ties in different circumstances, might be a RS, or approach that. Wearing a bow tie with a tux at a wedding, or receiving an Oscar, shouldn't be counted. htom (talk) 01:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • In general, photos are for illustration, not verification, although there are some exceptions. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 01:38, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Answers here and here. At least that's the way I edited it when I was editing the list. It's amazing how often you can find reliable sources that say "his trademark bow tie" or "his signature bow tie". -- Noroton (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, I didn't notice the other questions. Here:
          • In an era when bowtie wearing was commonplace, and a social norm (the inter-war era) - what makes a person from said era notable for wearing one? I think it's worth mentioning a few examples of bow-tie wearing when it was the norm, but no more, so I think Karl Marx and Lincoln are worth including, but not more than some representative examples like those.
          • Also, if this list is considered notable, then is it reasonable for a corresponding list for every conceivable accessory and item of clothing to exist? I would oppose keeping any similar article which did NOT have (1) multiple sources stating that the wearing of said item by notable people affects the image of the item and sales of the item -- we have multiple sources saying this for bow ties, proving that it's an important aspect of bow tie wearing. (2) reliable soucing for each individual on the list saying that the person is "known for" wearing the item -- in other words, that it forms part of the public image of that notable person. If the source says the person is known for his "trademark" wearing of the item or his "signature" wearing of the item, that would work too. I think that's reasonable. I think that means a student of the subject or someone with a serious interest in the subject would find the article a good resource for learning more. -- Noroton (talk) 01:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This was just kept a few weeks ago at AfD! Please trout slap nom as AfD is particularly backlogged 4000+ right now. List of sourced and has been explained this is for those known for the fashion choice - this is the stuff of books and has been sourced as a notable aspect of these people/characters. -- Banjeboi 02:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know I've been troutslapped for responding to every argument on here, so troutslap me again if you want - but AfD is not backlogged at all. Well, ok, it is, but only by one AfD, Bethmanns and Rothschilds, which is pretty close run. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 04:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (interposting) As unwittingly and unintentional as it no doubt is, there's a falsehood being maintained here. Fromthis AFD's initial post, it can be seen that Calvary included the AFD from two weeks ago. Next, Calvary seems to say that he is not taking advantage of the process so long as he has never heard of previous AFD's, yet the initial state of this AFD--that is, his initial post--shows an awareness simply through his inclusion of last month's AFD. Who doesn't make mistakes--no one can fully and completely read every link and citation--yet why not just take responsibility for the initial post which does indeed include last month's AFD? --Firefly322 (talk) 15:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • The {{subst:afd2}} template creates that list automatically. However, xe should have seen "(4th nomination)" in the title of the discussion page as xe was creating and saving it. If xe didn't, then that is a significant deficiency of Twinkle. Uncle G (talk) 16:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: This has got to be one of the most absurd articles I've ever seen, but it passes WP:V with flying colours. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed from Keep to Strong keep per New York Times quotation in article: "A list of bow tie devotees reads like a Who's Who of rugged individualists," which appears to justify this article in its current form. See also my comment below. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination contains the assertion that "almost everyone" has worn a bow tie at some point. Well, speaking as a working class northerner, I've never worn a bow tie in my life -- not only does it clash with the flat cap and braces, but I prefer not being beaten up on a daily basis. Seriously, if a number of notable 20th and 21st century figures are willing to flout sartorial convention in order to look like complete berks, and reliable third-party sources pick up on this, then we have verifiability and non-triviality rolled into one. -- Molotron 08:50, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It just doesn't satisfy WP:INDISCRIMINATE, as many notable individuals have worn bow-tie's. I like the fact that Wikipedia cater's to niche interests, but this list is altogether far too trivial to the point of being unencyclopedic. One of those rare cases where a well-referenced, overall good article is better off deleted - ignore all rules applies here. This is, of course, no disrespect to the editors of this article, who have overall worked hard at maintaining and improving this article. Master&Expert (Talk) 10:01, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reminder that the lead paragraph establishes the criterion that the individuals must be known for wearing bow ties, which is clearly discriminate. And ignoring all rules includes ignoring WP:IAR to my relief, since the nominator has indicated on his own talk page that he was tempted to simply delete the article using that principle and "fight to the death" if the deletion was reviewed. This is a case were the rules seem to be working just fine.--otherlleft (talk) 12:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Must be known for wearing bow ties. Define known for? Otherwise I could find a picture of just about anyone wearing a bow tie on wikipedia and use that as a reliable 'source' for them being known for wearing bow ties. The terms aren't defined clearly, and if this article is going to be anything more than a farce they should be, there should also be a clear criteria for sources as linking to other wiki articles or non-reliable third party sources is rediculous. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 17:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. We decide whether someone is known for wearing bow ties in the same way as we make decisions on any other article content. If reliable, verifiable sources say it, we accept it. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Define known for Sure. When a source specifically states that someone "typically", "constantly" wears bow ties, or the equivalent (often sources mention "his signature bow tie" or "his trademark bow tie"), then we have a well-sourced item on the list. The vast majority of items have sourcing just this good. For instance: Sir Robin Day (1923-2000), British television commentator and interviewer; his BBC News obituary said "With his thick horn-rimmed spectacles and trade mark polka-dot bow tie, he was the great inquisitor"[50] If you don't see this kind of quote beside the name, please follow the footnote, it's often there. If you see the talk page, near the top, you'll find about a half dozen names I'd taken off the list for inadequate sourcing. I'm all in favor of making the criteria even more explicit on the article page. -- Noroton (talk) 19:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP - This article is outrageous, and rather WP:ILIKEITish. However, the reason for keep is it's absolutely a well sourced article. My regards to the editors who created such a thorough piece (only on Wikipedia would an article/list like this come to existence). That being said, WP:V, no problem. The real question here is notability. This is a tough one because we're talking about bow ties. As the nom mentioned, everyone wears a boe tie once in their life...right? However, if you look at the list, it's not the fact that these people are sourced as wearing bow ties, but the individuals themselves are rather notable. The list, simply stated, is just the medium that brought all these notable bow tie wearers together. Some might take this as an indiscriminate collection of information. That is not the case at all, as the excellent prose and article itself are purely about notable people wearing bow ties, which is hardly indiscriminate. I would suggest some individuals to re-think their !vote, and take into consideration the definition of our policies WP:NOT, WP:V, and WP:N when doing so. In my opinion, these policies were written the way they were to allow articles just like this. Besides that, this is an informative piece that makes the encyclopedia a better, more enlightening read. My I remind people of the single most important policy when creating a great encyclopedia; WP:IAR. DigitalNinjaWTF 14:48, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't see any reason why this article hasn't achieved GA status. After this AfD, if the result is keep, I intend to start a discussion about nominating this article for GA review. DigitalNinjaWTF 15:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I've had men tell me that they have never, ever, worn a bow tie at all -- they wear normal ties with a tux :eek: , not even using a clip-on or pre-tied bow tie. htom (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Let me point out that there is some precedent for keeping bizarre but well-sourced articles. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPAPER, so we have room to be slightly weird every now and then. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Even the phrase, "list of bow tie devotees" is sourced in the article. Something similar cannot be said about the vast majority of lists on Wikipedia. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - as this debate is now over twice the length of the article, I'm tempted to add {{Verylong}} to the top ;)--otherlleft (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are times to be bold. htom (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Almost every deletion rationale and argument is wrong, and can be proven wrong by consulting reliable sources. The article is not original research, the fact that someone is famous for wearing a bow-tie can and is attributed to reliable sources (and any claim that is not backed up by a reliable source can be removed without having to delete the entire article). This is not a list of "almost everyone [who] has worn a bow tie at some point", this is a list of people for whom wearing bow-ties is a notable part of their public image. This article fits the very description of what is exempted from being "what Wikipedia is not": "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic, for example Nixon's Enemies List." The Sacramento Bee says "Lots of famous people are famous because of their devotion to bow ties." The fact that there is so much "attention to famous bow tie wearers in commerce and fashion commentary" is the exact reason that this list is encyclopedic and should exist. Whether it is "trivia" or not is irrelevant; notable "trivia" is still notable and thus encyclopedic. DHowell (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of notable people who wore the bowler hat. MickMacNee (talk) 00:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Yes, the article is well presented, cited and so on. That is missing the point. The subject itself is trivial in the extreme and the whole article is therefore unencyclopedic. When critics of WP want an example of an article to lampoon they may very well choose this one. Delete as non-notable: the wearers may be notable, their individual style may possibly be, but the collection is no more meaningful than, say, a list of people who drive a particular make of car or bathe on a particular day of the week. (No, I haven't checked - don't tell me we've got those too!) Ros0709 (talk) 08:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Triviality is not a reason for deletion (nor do you prove it - you have only asserted it), and it is not the purpose of this or any other article to make Wikipedia look good or avoid unfavourable publicity. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a popularity contest. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nor do I need to prove it. Rather, notability has to be proven WP:NOBJ and my argument is that the subject (specifically, the rather arbitrary list - not any individual element within it) is neither notable or shown to be notable. Ros0709 (talk) 10:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that in fact, the notability of the subject matter - individual bow tie wearers since 1900 - has been demonstrated by reliable external sources, not least the New York Times article cited in the lead. Your argument smacks somewhat of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a chicken or egg argument, the individuals are notable independent of the fact they wore bow ties. The bow tie wearing does not, in any of their cases, make the people notable nor does it unify the individuals in a way that is coherent and not near arbitrary (because when we think of Mickey Mouse and Woodrow Wilson we are not thinking about them at the same time ad comparing their choice of neck wear). It is for this reason this article violates the section of NOT regarding indiscrimination, and in the same phrasing triviality. It has absolutely nothing to do with "not liking" the article, it fails on its merits to meet the threshold for inclusion despite throwing more and more mentions of the phrase "bow tie" into the reference list nor expansion of already bloated coat rack sections that should be in the main bow tie article (if at all). The editors here are not on some vendetta against "trivia" lists, I myself have long defended "in popular culture" articles, and even sections, in articles because they have a basis of connections to an original source. There is trivia, and then there is trivial, and a list of everyone who wore a bow tie but have absolutely no other relation beyond this fact is completely arbitrary and meaningless. –– Lid(Talk) 12:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I never claimed - and not did anyone else - that these individuals were notable because they wore bow ties. It's rather that (as attested by the NYT article and others) the idea of a set of habitual bow-tie wearers is notable because all of these notable people are members of that set, and that (in the opinion of cultural commentators cited in the article) the practice of bow-tie wearing conveys some kind of coherent or semi-coherent cultural message about those individuals. They may not have a lot else in common; but the contention being reported in this article, and expressed in its sources, is that the common factor of habitual bow-tie wearing is a notable classification in itself. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You've made it clear, Lid, that you don't believe that, in the specific case of this one fashion accessory, that there is any notable reason to collect them. Other editors have pointed to some of the numerous references as not only verifying the subject, but in themselves asserting its notability. It's obvious that you don't agree. I would recommend that editors who have already participated in this debate not comment further if they have nothing new to add - it's going to take long enough for the closing admin to make an informed decision in this case.--otherlleft (talk) 13:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I find that quite amusing considering you have spent a significant amount of time in this deletion discussion attempting to refute every delete vote while I have made a grand total of three comments so far. The earlier assertion, of the sourced asserting the notability... when observed it illustrates the notability of bow tie culture, not a notability listing of every person in existence who has worn a bow tie, which is also a response to Alex above. One does not beget the other, no matter how often the connection is attempted to be made. In a strange twist, it's verging on notability via inheritance where no notability exists for the listing itself, but because the culture exists then the wearing is notable but the listing is completely arbitrary to people who have any relation to bow tie culture thus making the association incorrect and around and around we go. –– Lid(Talk) 13:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If there is a strange twist here, I believe it is your attempt to divert and distort this discussion through your invention of the term "bow tie culture." The term is not used in either Bow tie or the list article, and it yields a grand total of exactly 3 hits in Google (two for "bow tie culture" and one for "bowtie culture"). No other participant in this discussion has suggested that there is a phenomenon of "bow tie culture," much less that bow-tie wearing is notable because it is a manifestation of this alleged "culture." There is extensive reliably sourced evidence that people take note of the wearing of bow ties by men who wear bow ties, and this simple fact (not a made-up "culture") is the basis for the notability of this list. --Orlady (talk) 14:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:There's a "bow tie culture"? :citation needed: Really, now, I've heard of making things up, but that's giggle-worthy. htom (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Comment) "The basis of connections" have been made by reliable sources per WP:RS. For example, the New York Times's Fashion and Style article written by Warren St John, who--in one article published on June 26, 2005--connected Tucker Carlson, Theodore Roosevelt, Charlie Chaplin, Winston Churchill, Fred Astaire, Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Paul Simon, Louis Farrakhan, George Will, Charles Osgood, Andre 3000, Mark Russell, Pee-wee Herman, Mo Rocca, James Atlas, and Raj Peter Bhakta. Another example is the Wall Street Journal (a paper not at all known for its fashion articles) in this article it connects Tom Campbell and Tom Bliley among others to the set of "Classy Ties to Rich and Famous." To put it in very loose mathematical terms (an informal employment of the Algebra of sets), each WP:RS such as the Wall Street Journal or New York Times article provides information that can be used as a basis to justify--by means of basic set operations: union, intersection, complement. Thus the process of inclusion within the list is by no means trivial. --Firefly322 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Best. Examples. Ever. Wish you would have shown up earlier, might have cut this discussion down to just a few hundred thousand words. DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 13:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And if we take this to first order logic we come back with an invalid argument under predicates. The conclusion is not supported by the article itself, which is qhere the question lies, but to go backwards the connection in the NY times article is that all those individuals are "unified" by something as meaningless as a choice of attire. The argument against this article is based on logical conclusions, and you use of Andre 3000 is a good one considering Andre 3000's wearing of bow ties is limited to... a music video? However in that same music video he is wearing suspenders. Now suspenders in the eighties were big, but now... not so much. However the categorisation of people who have no relations whatsoever because they each choose to wear suspenders is something completley seperate from the notability of a culture regarding suspenders. My arguments are not against that these sources exist, it is against the categorisation itself as being an extrapolated requirement from the sources rather than their actual supporting notion of bow tie culture which is an article that I personally would not have a problem with, but for whatever reason the listing itself has taken on a life of its own. –– Lid(Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, you are saying we also need List of suspender wearers, too? ;) DENNIS BROWN (T) (C) 14:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. All wearers are now referenced. Racconish (talk) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Nominate for GA I would count myself a deletionist but cannot honestly conceive how anybody could read the opening few paragraphs and come to the conclusion that this was a trivial list of information. Lots of sources highlighting the quirkiness of the practice and how bow-tie wearers and bow-ties themselves are perceived as a consequence. It's also a sensible fork from the bow tie article in my view that would not be a great candidate for merging back in. Perhaps the list should be limited to public-facing figures (particularly politicians) where the way they are perceived is more important. I'd also like to see more comments about why the bow-tie was important for each particular individual - there are some examples, and those are the most interesting bits in the list. Also, perhaps there could be a better title - I think I saw "List of people known for wearing bow ties" somewhere in the above which seemed to be better directed to the point the article is trying to make. But these are relatively minor points. GDallimore (Talk) 16:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Seriously, talk about original research! The premise of the article is a "list of bow tie wearers", which in itself is NOT a notable topic for a list, so I'd vote to delete based on WP:N alone. The article itself is a long-winded essay (properly sourced be it as it may) that constitutes WP:OR. Wikipedia is just facts, no synthesis. This article is more of an ESSAY about bow-tie wearers than an encyclopedic list. Perhaps the article could be broken down into smaller, more notable sublists, but as the bowtie was an extremely popular piece of attire in a previous age, Wikipedia might as well have a "list of bell bottoms wearers". Themfromspace (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are plenty of reliable sources in this article that say that this is a notable topic for a list, and, as has been repeatedly said above, we go by what reliable sources say rather than subjective judgements of what is notable, however loud you shout the word "NOT". If you can find similar sources about bell bottom wearing (which I doubt) then yes, we can have such a list. You might also want to check out WP:BEANS before making such comments! Phil Bridger (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As Amwestover said just below reliable sources do not make a topic notable, they make it verifiable. Notability rests in the topic of the article being written about in third-party sources. The fact that we can prove that X wore a bow-tie has nothing to do with whether that fact should be the topic of an article. A compilation of people who wore bow ties isnt only an indiscriminate collection but also a nonnootable one. Since when have "bow tie wearers" been regarded as a notable group in themselves? Themfromspace (talk) 22:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think Themfromspace puts it pretty well. The references being there isn't enough to keep the article, it's what the references show. In this case, they don't provide sufficient eminence.--Koji† 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Have you actually read the sources in the article and mentioned above in this AfD, such as [51] and [52]? Nobody is claiming that articles saying that X wore a bow tie are enough to prove notability for this list - it's based on sources showing exactly what you asked for, that bow tie wearers are regarded as a notable group in themselves. As KojiDude says, it's what the references show. It's just a pity that so many people commenting here don't seem to have actually read them. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The first article would make an excellant source for the Bow tie article (if it isn't being used already). The second article doesn't say much of anything and could only be used for verifying facts (such as certain people who wore bowties). What I still fail to see is discussion of a "list of bow tie wearers" (the article title) in sources. The reason why is that it is an indiscriminate collection of information: nothing links these people together! Many have worn it because it was the de facto fashion of the time, many have worn it to be different from fashion. The list itself doesn't have anything to tie the people together except that they've worn a bow-tie and as such this list doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Themfromspace (talk) 23:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's an extremely amusing article (and amusing topic) that has been very well maintained and referenced, but being well maintained and well referenced doesn't make a topic appropriate for Wikipedia. Ultimately, this is trivial and not suited for an encyclopedia. Someone's gotta save this article source and include/reference it in an essay on zany non-encyclopedic topics or something cuz it'd really be a shame to see this go to waste. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 20:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Out of considerable sympathy for the closing admin reading through all of this, I will simply state 1. sources show sufficient notablilty to justify the content of a list of this type, and 2. nomination two weeks after a prior "keep" AfD, while inadvertant, is inappropriate. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 22:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per CSD:G3 (blatant hoax). Stifle (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thora rhymnarsson[edit]

Thora rhymnarsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Unsourced BLP. No ghits. Likely a hoax or the love interest of the author. Can't speedy because author claims that the subject is a Swedish royal. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 00:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Belete per nom.--Woland (talk) 00:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete hoax. I find it dubious that anyone who is "known throughout Sweden and the world" and "[of] interest of the Swedish press ever since she was born" would get less than one full page of non relevant GHits. I also find the assertion that her love life includes "the entire national army corps" rather dubious. Icewedge (talk) 01:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Belete" (sorry woland!) per nom. Seems like its probably a prank from this person. Bsimmons666 (talk) Friend? 01:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hoax, the only link for this name is to allpoetry.com, not quite a reliable source. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 01:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - You're not royalty if you only get 5 Google results on your name (4 if you don't include the Wikipedia article), I smell a hoax. Matt (Talk) 09:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hoax. Googling "Thora rhymnarsson princess" gets this article and one other entry (allpoetry.com) which gives a "404 not found" error. Sorry, Irish-hans-solo - buy her a bunch of flowers instead. JohnCD (talk) 09:42, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete - vandalism. It can be demonstrated that she's not a Swedish princess, since an exhaustive list of Swedish royals can easily be compiled. None of them has a surname like 'Rhymnarsson', unsurprisingly. The presence of an Irishman called 'Mr Murphy' who calls people leprechauns doesn't exactly increase my faith in this article either. Mind you, it gets awfully dark in Kiruna around this time of year, so I suppose the local trolls have to amuse themselves somehow... AlexTiefling (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. MBisanz talk 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic parameterization[edit]

Semantic parameterization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View AfD)

Original research (published just this year), conflict of interest (Travis Breaux writing aboutTravis Breaux), and there seems to be no indepentend third-party sources confirming "Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process developed by Travis Breaux". Travis Breaux seems to be using this article to get this fact confirmed. Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 00:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marcel Dekker's claims are factually inaccurate and inconsistent with the Wikipedia policy on original research, conflicts of interest and notability:
(1) The Wikipedia article on semantic parameterization is not original research. This Wikipedia article summarizes an earlier work that was previously published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal and this summary is not original research, by definition.
From the Wikipedia:No_original_research#Citing_oneself_policy: "This policy does not prohibit editors with specialist knowledge from adding their knowledge to Wikipedia, but it does prohibit them from drawing on their personal knowledge without citing their sources. If an editor has published the results of his or her research in a reliable publication, the editor may cite that source while writing in the third person and complying with our neutrality policy." Conforming with this policy, the Wikipedia article on semantic parameterization is written in the third person, is neutral by referencing the work of others and restricting language to the unbiased facts of the process.
(2) This article does not violate the Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest, which states: "Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." The article contains no self-promotional, biographical information nor does it stand to provide financial or monetary benefits to the editors.
(3) There is no question as to whether semantic parameterization is a process, this fact is established in the previously published paper. The question is whether this process should be summarized and connected to related articles within Wikipedia on knowledge representation, controlled languages and Description Logic, to name a few. In addition, there are presently at least five, independent and notable third party sources that confirm semantic parameterization is a process:
[1] Discovering and Understanding the Multi-dimensional Correlations among Regulatory Requirements with Applications to Risk Assessment, R.A. Ghandi, PhD Thesis, University of North Carolina - Charlotte, May 2008.
[2] "Annotating Regulations Using Cerno: An Application to Italian Documents." N. Zeni, N. Kiyavitskaya, J.R. Cordy, L. Mich, J. Mylopoulos, 3rd International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security, pp. 1437-1442, 2008.
[3] "Towards a Framework for Tracking Legal Compliance in Healthcare." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. Advanced Information Systems Engineering, LNCS vol. 4495/2007, pp. 218-232, 2007.
[4] Compliance Framework for Business Processes Based on URN A, S. Ghanavati, Masters Thesis, Ottawa University of Canada, May 2007.
[5] "A Requirements Management Framework for Privacy Compliance." S. Ghanavati, D. Amyot, L. Peyton. 10th Workshop on Requirements Engineering, Toronto, Canada, May 17-18, 2007, pp. 149-159. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdbreaux (talk • contribs) 02:16, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. These contempary sources doesn't seems enough... and the 4th a master thesis...!? and 3th and 5th from the same author. In the current article you still only use your own work as direct source of your accomplishments. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 03:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Dekker's assessment appears subjective and based on opinion without reference to a standard by which these evaluations are made fairly and consistently across Wikipedia articles. Notability is not decided by one person. How many sources are sufficient to determine a source is notable? The PhD and Master's theses [1,4] are works of considerable effort that were reviewed by a panel of experts who hold PhDs in a relevant field of study. The peer-reviewed publications [2,3,5] were co-authored by experts with over 20 years of experience. The five sources above are substantial intellectual and notable works deemed worthy of publication by independent reviewers. Contrary, again, to Marcel Dekker's claim, the Wikipedia article cites four other sources upon which semantic parameterization is based, including:

  1. ^ a b C. Potts, K. Takahashi, and A.I. Anton, "Inquiry-based requirements analysis", IEEE Software 11(2): 21–32, 1994.
  2. ^ A. Dardenne, A. van Lamsweerde and S. Fickas, "Goal-Directed Requirements Acquisition", Science of Computer Programming v. 20, North Holland, 1993, pp. 3-50.
  3. ^ J. Gruber, Lexical Structures in Syntax and Semantics, North Holland, New York, 1976.
  4. ^ C. Fillmore, "The Case for Case", Universals in Linguistic Theory, Holt, Rhinehart and Winston, New York, 1968.

How many other sources are needed to appease Mr. Dekker's personal interests? Moreover, the Wikipedia article is not a representation of any one person's accomplishments, but the collaboration of at least three researchers based on a foundation of prior, independent work as cited in the article. The article represents a contribution to knowledge, not the promotion of any one person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tdbreaux (talk • contribs) 03:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of the four references you give confirm your first statement. Now you call my remarks subjective and based on opinion without reference...?? Maybe I should have explained some more. If you state:
  • Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process developed by Travis Breaux...
I read here that you invented the term "Semantic parameterization", and based on the source you did this this year. Now I checked Google once more and found three of your articles on line, which I have added to the article. The first two articles are written with Annie I. Antón. So it seems you cointed the statement "Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process" not by your self but with here.
But there is more. Google and Google books give only a few references to "Semantic parameterization" and several of them related to other work:
... now I can continue
Now these references show the term "semantic parameterization" is used in several ways:
  • lexical-semantic parameterization
  • visual semantic parameterization, and
  • semantic parameterization process.
Now you rewrote the first sentence into:
  • Semantic parameterization is a conceptual modeling process for expressing natural language descriptions of a domain in first-order predicate logic.
This still seems incorrect, because you seems to be talking about one type of semantic representation. But maybe I am mistaken here. Maybe these terms are all connected. I do am interested in this field, but I am missing a general introduction in this article, explaining some more about the bigger picture here.
-- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 13:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has now shifted towards the context into which the article should be placed, as well as towards the content and organisation of the article, and the subject. Which is not any more about whether the article should be deleted, or not. -- Crowsnest (talk) 14:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think so. I agree with Richard Cavell that "Semantic parameterization" is a legitimate academic concept. I however seriously doubt the way Tdbreaux is presenting this concept. I think his interpretation is to new to be notable. I his introduction Breaux is refering to the
which doesn't seem to be notable either. I think all of those these thing are just confusing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as original research.--Boffob (talk) 04:05, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep The topic appears to have academic support and notability. However, as a theory coined by the author, User:Tbreaux is the wrong person to write or edit this article, by WP:COI. The keep is weak because, despite AfD not being cleanup, I don't imagine it is likely that the article, if kept, will be substantially rewritten by a third party (and will likely remain a COI problem). gnfnrf (talk) 05:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - I don't doubt that this is a legitimate academic concept. I have some reservations about the present author being the one to write the article, since it gives an aura of ownership or otherwise removing the article from the community. But I agree with Gnfnrf: We're better off having the article than not having it. Because it's on such a technical and academic concept, we should stick with it. - Richard Cavell (talk) 09:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep (removed speedy, see MuZemike's comment below) - The subject is notable, T.D. Breaux appears (from Google Scholar) to be an expert on the field. The apparent problem is how to get the article in a (more) neutral point of view (not whether it should be deleted). Tdbreaux already himself removed his name from the disputed article lead, giving good hopes with respect to NPOV. In fact, for as far as I can see (I am not known to the subject), the article looks good as it is now, I cannot see any OR or NPOV. For instance, there is only one reference to an article by T.D. Breaux in the article, which to me seems not to be much. -- Crowsnest (talk) 09:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - notability well established with the plethera of good sources. Original research not occuring, as this is all previously published information. WilyD 13:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Is this a test of how many buzzwords one can get into a Wikipedia article? Stifle (talk) 14:31, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep. The article needs work and editing to a more NPOV. However, POV, COI and citing oneself, while frowned upon are NOT criteria for deletion. Arguments against notability have been contradicted sufficiently, and no other complaints about the article are valid reasons to delete. Theseeker4 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. -- Mvuijlst (talk) 01:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — seems to be well–referenced and verified. COI may make editing of an article or user conduct problematic, but, remember that it itself is not a valid deletion argument. Also note that speedy keep does not apply as this seems to clearly be a good faith and not a vexatious nomination. With that being said, we're approaching blizzard conditions on this discussion, anyway. MuZemike (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 06:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centaurtopia[edit]

Centaurtopia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD)

Only a few google hits, so appears to lack significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject as required by the notability guideline. PhilKnight (talk) 01:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]


  • Please keep this article for two more days. I just need two day!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortaw (talk • contribs) 01:48, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: Although I saw your note regarding the mass D&D game, the article really doesn't belong on Wikipedia. I'd recommend using messageboards or a more D&D-specific wiki, or it could just be e-mailed around to the game participants. I'm sorry to say that it has no real notability outside of your group game. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per my comment above, but allow at least enough time for Shortaw to copy the material for his own use. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This article has been added to the list of Dungeons & Dragons-related Articles for Deletion on the WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons main page. -Drilnoth (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Transwiki to some D&D or RPG Wikia. No notable for common RPG players. No third party sources: self promotion article? Zero Kitsune (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or transwiki); I would suggest trimming and merging into a parent article, but this article is entirely orphaned so I don't even know what the parent article would be. —Politizer talk/contribs 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete- No importance or notability outside the 150 D&D enthusiasts who are going to use this stuff for their game. Wikipedia is not a web host. Reyk YO! 05:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Would be better placed on a D&D wiki, not Wikipedia. Matt (Talk) 09:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Wikipedia is not a web host. It doesn't matter whether the article is 'needed' until tomorrow, next week, or next year. AlexTiefling (talk) 12:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for lacking independent references to demonstrate notability. Wikipedia isn't for stuff that you and you friend(s) have made up and, as point out, isn't a web host. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:11, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No notability. As has been said, WP not a web host and not for made up stuff. --skew-t (talk) 05:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, especially because this edit removed the context.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 03:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. No idea what this is, as I have never heard of a thing in the article in 2 decades of D&D of how it relates to it. No sources, citations, etc. Seems like a fan creation with zero notability if it really is in any way related to D&D, at least. Certainly fails verifiablility. shadzar-talk 04:40, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2008_November_14&oldid=1081072638"