Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2008 September 21

< September 20	September 22 >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Cold front. Cirt (talk) 23:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coldfront[edit]

Article does not does not cite reliable, 3rd party sources to assert notability within the guidlines for websites. VG ☎ 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason we can't redirect to Cold front? Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - I dug around a fair bit, and this page didn't meet the 10-15 minute Google News and googling for news tests. Probably no RS available for expansion at this time. On redirecting, note that there are some 19,400 hits on Google (I know, I know - enough with the Google mentions) for "coldfront weather -irc," so it may be warranted. MrZaius^talk 02:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Cold front. Is a plausible spelling for that, which is notable. current article is not verified, so should go. even if sources found, should still redirect, and have a hatnote at Cold front for other use.Yobmod (talk) 14:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MrKIA11 (talk) 12:06, 25 September 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. Snowball'ed seicer | talk | contribs 14:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fash[edit]

Non-notable musician. It's very difficult to do a search for "fash" because a lot of hits for "fashion" keep showing up, so I did a Google search for "Brainmeat Records", and I can't find a single hit that isn't a copy of this article. Corvus cornix_talk 23:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~; fails WP:N Prince of Canada^{t | c} 00:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amended: Speedy Delete per above & removal of only ref. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 01:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Arseces has removed the references to Brainmeat Records, so my previous comment now no longer applies, but now there is even less notability in the current version as of the minute that I write this, "get ready for this guy" is not a claim of notability. "Now at age 25 fash has become one of the best known electronic producers" is a claim of notability, but that's a non-sourced claim. Corvus cornix_talk 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete. Is there an assertion of notability for either the Iranian musician (for which the page was overwritten) or the Australian electronica group (the earlier content)? —C.Fred (talk) 00:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It seems odd that they have the same discography. Corvus cornix_talk 00:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - As far as I can tell, that's because when an editor overwrote the article with the Iranian musician, he didn't change the discography. —C.Fred (talk) 03:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Esradekan Gibb. KJS77 Join the Revolution
Speedy delete fails WP:Music. I couldn't find a single hit except this article either.— Ѕandahl ♥ 01:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A bit off-key in regard to WP:MUSIC Ecoleetage (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability criteria. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete, can someone please throw the snowball now? Daniel Case (talk) 04:35, 22 September 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. Suggest editorial discussion on talk page of article about possible merge. lifebaka++ 04:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Makuta (Bionicle)[edit]

Was both tagged for speedy and prodded, but the author removed the tags. This article is unverified and the subject is not notable. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep

Though I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification), it is something someone would look up. Someone wanting to know what a Bionicle Makuta was aren't going to go to the virtually unknown Bionicle Wiki, they're going to go to their good friend Wikipedia.
The article that I split this from (Characters and groups in Bionicle) was just getting to long.
I notice that the warning states that it is underly verifiable. Well, it does have plenty of source, but for some reason anything on the citations beyond the little numbers won't show up, and I'm not a wiki-formating geek (no "references" section magically appeared).
Notability is not a policy, it's a guideline. It's not the word of god.

All in all, please listen to my argument before acting in haste. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I choose to suggest deletion for any and all articles whose keep proponents use "I doubt the fact that this article meets notability (which, contrary to popular belief, is not actiually a policy, and therefore is not full justification)" as a keep reason. Corvus cornix_talk 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep it looks like it just might squeak bye WP:FICT, cant say I am an expert at telling how notable fictional groups are though.. - Icewedge (talk) 00:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss on the talk page how to deal with the material. It is not obvious to me how this list should be handled. There are indeed a lot of characters, and dealing with them in group seems sensible; this is already a combination article, and merging it much further may not be reasonable. . Since we can verify from the primary source, we can arrange the material how we think most useful. I have sympathy for those who would like to combine this sort of material, but I'd have more if the merges didn't tend to lose material. There is one great virtue of a merge--there is not need to show anything about notability of the individual parts. Not that one necessarily can't, but it does save argument.DGG (talk) 00:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Totally in-universe, no independent sources and not notable.--Grahame (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I've formatted the refs properly so that people may assess them more easily. Prince of Canada^{t | c} 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Characters and groups in Bionicle. Article is written primarily in an in-universe style, and there is no indication of notability in the real world. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Fancruft. No reliable sources to establish notability. Those references to "Federation of Fear" don't appear to work. The other references are blogs. Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Commment Axl is incorrect. Though they are labeled as "blogs", they are actiually stories told in journal entries, quite distinct from, say, a myspace blog. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see what you mean: they are stories disguised as blog entries. However they are from bioniclestory.com, unfortunately not a reliable source. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actiually it is, as it is an offical site made by Lego, the makers of Bionicle. If one goes to www.Lego.com, Products, Bionicle, a link to Bioniclestory.com is very obvious. Also, at the bottom of the many pages there is a compyright warning which cleary states that the site is owned by Lego. Lastly, recent bionicle commercials on TV say "go to Bioniclestory.com". It is an official site. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia "reliable sources" states "Wikipedia articles should use reliable, third-party, published sources." (Emphasis mine.) bioniclestory.com is not third-party. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well where else am I going to get storyline info? Articles on fictional universes often use first-party (offical) sources. Also, Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. [[User:Tutthoth-Ankhre|Tutthoth-Ankhre~ The Pharaoh of the Universe]] (talk) 18:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That doesn't technically apply here. You are trying to convince us why this article should be kept, telling us to ignore all rules is not an argument that will win you this article's stay on this wikipedia. This article does not meet our notability requirements, which as stated are, significant coverage from multiple reliable 3rd party sources that are independent from the subject. The reason a primary source cannot be trusted as a source is because the primary source usually endorses the subject matter, and therefore cannot be used as a source to establish notability.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs /_Improve 05:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per DGG. Edward321 (talk) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that G7 now applies to the article. However, given a few edits by other editors and this AfD, I decline to delete it. However, should another administrator wish to do so, feel free. Otherwise, this AfD can run its course. seresin ( ¡? ) 23:57, 23 September 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. BJ^Talk 01:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Klonoa[edit]

Full of original reasearch, almost entirely devoid of sources and out-of-universe notability. He's cute though. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see two sources, though I cannot evaluate them. DGG (talk) 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's valid, it's just flawed. Don't delete it, fix it.--76.10.75.168 (talk) 04:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Pretty well known video game character. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:ITSNOTABLE. Reliable sources need to be pointed out as such to indicate notability; just saying that it is does not hold water in an AfD discussion. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is sourced, and being the main characater in a large number of games is a clear indication of notability. Edward321 (talk) 13:46, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**An article written by "IGN Staff" does not strike as a reliable source in my view of the guideline. MuZemike (talk) 17:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The character does not establish notability using reliable third party sources, so it does not need an article. The one important source is already contained within Klonoa: Door to Phantomile. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. TTN (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Note — I believe Klonoa here refers to the video game character, not the video game series, so as to not get confused. MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Snowball Delete — Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guntz looks like it's headed for the bin. (I also recommended there that someone look at this for deletion as it does have the same exact problems as Guntz.) MuZemike (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A gross misappropriation of the term 'snowball'. You're in the mood of shoving WP:ITSNOTABLE in our faces, yet clearly ignore WP:ALLORNOTHING on the same page. SashaNein (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Klonoa" the character is iffy notability-wise, yes, and does not need his own article until proven otherwise. However, the Klonoa page should actually be about the notable video game franchise "Klonoa", and it currently halfway is.
In order to be encyclopedic, the page needs rewritten to focus on the series, with the main character as a major aspect of that topic, rather than primarily on the character with the series as a sidenote. But while the current page is written primarily about the character, it also contains other useful elements such as the gameplay descriptions, the "Klonoa series games" section, and the listing of Klonoa crossover titles that make it a reasonable basis for the eventual article on the Klonoa series.
In conclusion, the Klonoa page is currently a misfocused draft of an article on a notable subject with the same title. But since the article about the series will need to exist eventually, and the current article contains enough of the content that will eventually be in that page so as to be useful to readers (minorly) and future editors (majorly), I believe it should be Kept and reframed. I would volunteer to write it myself, but I personally know little about the series, so that would be infeasible. I would be willing to do what I can though, by trimming the unnecessary bio details and writing a new lead that makes it clear the article is about the series. --erachima talk 17:54, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a character page, keep as a franchise page (like for example Bridget Jones) => Keep. Lose all the OR and character-related PLOT, but everything starting with the "Klonoa series games" section seems alright. – sgeureka ^t•c 18:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment — I would be willing to change to keep provided all material except the Klonoa series games section be removed, as all other sections talk strictly about the character and provides little or no context to the series as a whole. MuZemike (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]

- The other appearances section is trivia and should be removed, and the other characters section needs a rewrite as it is in-universe and not very encyclopedic. MuZemike (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per five pillars. Just kidding. Keep not because of the 5 Pillars nonsense, but because that this character has the chance for notability, he just needs some clean-up. AFD is not a way to clean-up an article. ZeroGiga (talk) 21:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

**Oh, don't remind us of that tripe again! MuZemike (talk) 22:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Gosh Muzemike, let's not get ad hominem shall we? ;) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/expand/shif focus/whatever as per SGeureka and erachima actually. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 12:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note — I strike all my above comments as it is clear that I have no clue of what I am talking about. I'm going to have some of that tripe, now. MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 25 September 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 List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu. Cirt (talk) 23:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kamiloiki Elementary School[edit]

Article about an Elementary school with no claim to notability with a non-encyclopedic page. I would have speedied it but I don't think it qualifies. mboverload @ 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

did you try a prod? it usually works for these, if one explains to the editors involved. DGG (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I usually redirect these to the school district they are part of, and explain to the author why. That would be my vote I guess, or you could withdraw the nomination and redirect it now. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm in agreement with Beeblebrox; a check at Category:Schools in Hawaii doesn't show that there's an article about schools in Honolulu (city or county). This sort of article isn't consistent with what is kept on Wikipedia. The usual outcome (not a specific policy, but a statement of what happens in practice) is that high schools are inherently notable, but that primary schools have to demonstrate that they are notable beyond being a school. I'm usually in favor of a few days debate on an article that seems to be part of a weeklong class lesson about Wikipedia, but in this case, this appears to be written by a teacher or staffperson. Wikipedia is not the place to create a web page for the school, nor to post a handbook. Suggestion is that if you want to keep this, create an article about the public schools on Oahu and add a link for Kamiloki. Even a paragraph is OK, but please, no mission statements. Mandsford (talk) 01:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of elementary schools in Hawaii#Honolulu per accepted practice. TerriersFan (talk) 02:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu as suggested above. No indication that this school is special or remarkable in any way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]
Comment On the other hand, if Kamiloiki Elementary School were in New York City, the discussion might look like this. Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning the relative importance of a primary school is understandable, but not every school is the same. --Jh12 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List_of_elementary_schools_in_Hawaii#Honolulu. --Jh12 (talk) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 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) 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Willis McCarthy[edit]

Basically, if you believe someone is notable because "McCarthy has finished fourteen one hundred mile ultramarathon endurance runs. He has written a novel, 100 Miles to Destiny, based on his twenty-five years of experiences as a runner, and as a competitor in the Western States Endurance Run." then please vote to keep. If not please vote to delete. mboverload @ 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Furthermore, the novel is apparently self published. No libraries hold it, which sort of surprised me, because in cases like this the author usually donates a copy to his town library. DGG (talk) 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Athletes-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No independent reliable sources found that verify claims of notability. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:50, 25 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Saadawi[edit]

Multiple issues: Article is an autobiography that fails the notability guideline. Also does not include sources that might hint at any notability. Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 23:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete College instructor who clearly does not meet WP:PROF. DGG (talk) 00:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sourcing to demonstrate WP:PROF. We66er (talk) 05:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete par being the nominator Excirial^{(Talk,Contribs)} 10:10, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nice guy, but that's not enough. --Crusio (talk) 08:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete. what Crusio said. I see no claim to notability, may be speediable as CSD:A7. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:36, 24 September 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 CSD G12 as a copyvio of this page. This should not be interpreted as a judgement on the notability, one way or the other, of this person. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A Whelan[edit]

He has a lot of small claims to notability, but none of those claims appear to be enough to be included in Wikipedia. Article in current state does not meet the cut. mboverload @ 23:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Rapid keep a member of the National Academy of Engineering, which is equivalent notability to the National Academy of Sciences. No possible queswastion that members of national academies are notable. DGG (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. It's a copyvio.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Samuel J. Howard has it right. Tagged with {{db-copyvio}}. Deor (talk) 03:16, 22 September 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. While the keep arguments are long, they are not terribly persuasive. Notability is not inherited. lifebaka++ 04:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Bahar[edit]

No independent third-party sources given in the article. I can't find any through Google (only ~1200 hits - very few related and those are myspace type things). Seems like if this artist is actually "influential", there should be something meeting WP:RS out there. Anyway, delete as failing verifiability policy. Wickethewok (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I was unable to find anything on this person either, other than self-published material and the usual directory entry style things. Would not appear to meet the WP:MUSIC notability guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Hi i can understand your dispute after reading all this , i am only trying to offer, some information on a musician that played a part in the history of UK house music.in the very early days not much was put on record on when house music first came into the uk. The Theme is one of the first underground dance tunes to get picked up by a major virgins 10records

i dont feel any out of context claims have been made, i did try to add more links to show some of Unique 3s work.

here are some of the quotes on the theme

Unique 3 "The first & hardest on the UK House scene" [Pete Tong - Radio 1]

"This isn’t music, this is a physical force" [Mixmag]

"The new age, [Unique 3] stand as a testament to the new spirit of risk and adventure" [Paulo Hewitt NME]

"The Theme’ gave bass tones a whole new meaning" [Music Mag]

"Commitment to the underground" [Record Mirror]

this was taken from the Unique 3 myspace site, i did not use the quote as i cant find them on other web site. i would just like to contribute to the history of house music in the uk. --Radicalthinker (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello i pasted this form the criteria page for inclusion. Is cited in reliable sources as being influential in style, technique, repertory or teaching in a particular music genre.

i feel this artist falls under influential in style i do feel the publications and people such a Pete Tong would have this removed from the the unique myspace site i also just found this below

The inclusion of Unique 3’s - ’The Theme’ on both The Chemical Brothers album of tracks that inspired them to make music: ’Brothers Gonna Work It Out’ & on Warp Records collection of early House tracks that inspired them to set up their world famous label, an album aptly titled:’Inspirations’, stands testament to this. - Virgin/10 Records Press Department.

--Radicalthinker (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] links The quotes can be found at Unique 3 i know this is the unique 3 myspace however i do feel if would not be possible for them to make such claims about The Theme if the quotes are not true, little information on David Bahar will ever be found this is an artist that has stayed away from the lime light and has just put a face to the name, thats what i think is rather interesting. this unique 3 site is nothing to do with David Bahar, 10 records is no longer trading but im sure Virgin records would not let unique 3 get away with any miss quotes. David Bahar chart hit was in the Black Echo publication short of getting a faxed copy i am pritty sure i will not find it on the web, this is why i did not include it as i thought that was not up to standerd --Radicalthinker (talk) 12:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

--Radicalthinker (talk) 13:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think I understand what this guy Bahar has to do with Unique 3? From your descriptions, it sounds like he worked on one track with them and that is it. Unique 3 may be notable, but that doesn't mean this guy is. The only quasi-reliable source that even mentions Bahar is this discogs page: http://www.discogs.com/release/462981 . Wickethewok (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he may be notable, but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

unique 3 and the theme im getting a little worried here as why this is happening, i have shown that this artist was responserble for the Theme, and sold part of the copyright over to ten and unique 3. you have stated that you feel unique 3 may be notable, the only thing that make them notable is the theme, and this artis Bahar was on the first release of The Theme on the Chill Records label, i know that the discogs is the only thing i can find on the net about Unique 3 s first releas, thats one of the reasons i put the artical up here,this artical was first contested by speedy deletion, and more than one editor has said, ok,after discusion. im not saying this guy Bahar is Elvis, im just pointing out Unique 3 and the Mad Musician played a part in UKs dance history and did inspire some bigger named artist by their own admition. --Radicalthinker (talk) 19:17, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - There is a big problem with verifiability. The only reference is Discog and "quasi-reliable" is probably a good description as the content is user submitted. See WP:V for the Wikipedia policy on verifiability. -- Whpq (talk) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This "Unique 3" group seems notable since, as Radical points out, there is information out there to write an article about them. However, David Bahar, who seems to be only involved with one of their releases, does not have any media coverage/verifiable information/etc. Not everyone who works with someone notable is notable themselves. Wickethewok (talk) 20:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unique 3 and the mad musician as i say the only thing what would make Unique 3 note worthy is The Theme nothing ells can be found quotes refering to anything ell than the theme, this artist was given credit on the Chill recorings and some info can be found http://www.discogs.com/release/462981, it is true not alot to be found on Google, but i must ask are we look only to google if so what are we doing here, i do feel no extravigant claims have been made regarding Bahar, and as long as we stick to fact i think its rather unfair to delete.

New Link David Bahar Link please take a look at [[1]] go down to Disc 2 you will find The Theme Chill Mix. this is the Chill Records mix, on the credits for the chill records release is David Bahar. all the quotes that can be found on Unique 3 relate to The Theme, this artist was part of unique 3 at the time of releasing the theme, the title of the warp records album was ’Inspirations’warp is one of the best known indie labels in the UK i know you know your stuff,but im just making the point, they chose The Theme, Chill Mix on the album, this information was not put up by me, it is on the Warp Records Page and so is (independent). On the david bahar page if you follow the link CHill Records you will find cat number and artist listing I understand and respect what you are doing here and this Artist David Bahar, was unknown to you me and many others, i found him on myspace when i read the info regarding the theme that a bit of a shock to me as The Theme was a big tune in my life in its day, i wanted to make sure he was not making it up as i thought Unique 3 where just unique 3 and not the mad musician also, thats when i looked around found what i could and then put up the info here as i feel its a good place for true history to be noted,if you wish to disregard this piece of music history, i can only wonder why a piece of British dance music history that has been missed by Google to name but one, should be missed here just because of that, i will not include this artical in any other page, to make sure nothing could be said or implied that may not be the case, looking at the warp records Inspirations album i think it fair to give Unique 3 and the mad musician some credit here,what we need to understand here is that Unique 3s members changed a lot not sure if you know but Kevin Harper(Boy Wonder) the guy that worked with nightmares on Wax and was on Warp, Was one of the Unique 3 also befor the mad musician, When Bahar joined the team he kept on his name as the mad musician, but on the chill records label you will only find 3 names d bahar i park and p cargill, but it was unique 3 and the mad musician i will be more than happy to include, a link for Unique 3, i did put in a link for unique 3 but it was taken off,if you can find anything on unique i would hope you would leave this up and include the information on Unique 3. --Radicalthinker (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply just trying to make things easy here, please note Warp Records inclusion of The Theme on the Album [[[[2]]]]Bahar was part of Unique 3 at the time of the Chill Records release, Warp Records is an independent page, i have never put any thing up on it, unique 3 members changed many times, (Wickethewok) says himself "Unique 3 may be notable" i agree because the Theme was an inspiration to some now big names in music it is notable, and to remove the page David Bahar is missing the point, no extravigant claims have been made, its all about giving good honest and truthfull information. i have show in the discussion some quotes from some big names in Dance music, and provied the link to Warp Records showing independent record that The Theme was influential, and that David Bahar was given credit for this on the Chill Records label. --Radicalthinker (talk) 10:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please read below the quote by wickethewok posted ok|Wickethewok]] (talk) 14:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

"he may be notable" but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) i think the link to warp records is enough for the verifiability policy it is third party, im sure given time i can find more, the more i look the more i seem to find, if you follow the link from Chill Records on the David Bahar page you can see the Artist name and cat number Catalog#: DB786, for the Chill Records release, The Chill Mix was the one chosen for Warp Records.what im trying to do here is show some history that has been missed by goodle because no one has botherd to in put the information, i think this artical is of interest as the links are valid and no extravagant have been made, its only fact[--Radicalthinker (talk) 10:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The quote is attributed to the wrong editor. I (user:whpq) am the one being quoted. In any case, there is no demonstration of notability, and more importantly, no demonstration of verifiability. Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. All the content on wikipedia is user submitted, and the Warp article in particular provides no sources for any of its information. Nor does it make any mention of David Bahar. -- Whpq (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

reply to comment

i understand your (nor does it make any mention of David Bahar)but im not sure if all the information here is been read, it has been shown Uniqu3 release The Theme was on Chill Records befor chill 10 Records took over the Track and distribution,unique 3 artist appear on the chill mix on chill records D.Bahar I.Park, P Cargill, the cat numder is DB786, please note( DB) the artis was and working with unique that produced this track, but was an indepenent artist, (the mad Musician). as stated unique 3 members did change and that can be seen on the David Bahar page, as far as reliable source is, if you dont feel Wikipedia is a reliable source, whats the point in Verifiability, we read Wikipedia because we know its the info is more reliable that google search, you guys put so much time and effort in to make sure it is, and i truly respect that fact, are you saying that the warp records disc 2 showing the Unique 3 the Theme chill mix on 10 records, is not actualy the case,if that is true i think we need to look at removing that also. i feel some editors here are been unfair and nit picky, i have seen pages with far less infomation on them and they dont seem to be getting this kind of attention. i have ofered many quotes relating to The Theme, from pete tong to record mirror, and finaly put the point of warp record including the track on [[3]] --Radicalthinker (talk) 13:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Ok, please understand this: this debate is NOT about Unique 3. This is about DAVID BAHAR. Please stop trying to show that Unique 3 is notable/verifiable/etc. It doesn't particularly matter, the issue here is the subject of the article, not some people who he briefly worked with. Wickethewok (talk) 14:12, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Radicalthinker is trying to establish a rather tortured path to notability. As I understand it, the chain of logic proposed by Radicalthinker is:

Unique 3 is notable in UK house music
The song The Theme by Unique 3 was a hit and/or is notable
David Bahar in some way contributed to the song The Theme

Ergo, David Bahar is notable and should have a wikipedia page. Please correct me if i have misinterpreted with this simply summary.

However, this does not establish notability in a variety of ways.

As Wickethewok has pointed out, this discussion is about David Bahar and not Unique 3. So all the information about Unique 3 does not have much relevance especially as notability is not inherited.

Notability is established by showing third-party coverage about David Bahar in reliable sources. There is none offered in the article. There are none to be found in searching Google Web, google New, or Google Books. Nobody has written about him. Nobody has taken note of him.

None of the information is verifiable. I'm not saying the information isn't true. But there are no references which verify the information. Discog is user-submitted. And even if we accepted that, all it verifies is that he was a producer for the song. It doesn't verify any of the other information in the article, nor does it establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 14:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks you got it to a T with the info you have submitted i think you have got all most a perfect understading of what is going on.However i can not understand how you can say the information relating to Unique 3 has nothing to do with this artist, everything on Unique 3 is in referance to The Theme, to which david bahar made a contribution,but was an independent artis i do also note 10( if a artist work, is included in a compelation this may also be submitted) with regard to user submitted Discog it was not put up by me, i just thought it would be a good place to find the information so i went to it. The Theme is without question notable,in your own words also he may be notable, but the article fails the verifiability policy. -- Whpq (talk) 16:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC) its on the warp insperations compelation Album and as stated record mirror pete tong ect, so that been the case unique 3 and the mad musician have a part in it, as its the chill mix on the Warp records Compelation that is the point im making here, some of your editors agree, that the Theme is noteworthy so the Unique 3 and the Mad Musician (david bahar) both credited on the chill records release they are like 2 peas in the same pod, but and not just the same group, please note, part of the critera for notabuility ( 10 the artist work is included in a compelation) the warp listing reads (the chill Mix) from Chill Records. Bahars name is on it--Radicalthinker (talk) 15:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)not sure why all this got highlighted, sorry [reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BJ^Talk 01:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fish Information and Services[edit]

The company does not meet the notability guideline for companies and organisations. It is small, privately owned, and rated as a small internet site by Alexa. The creator of the article appears to be spamming wikipedia by creating articles about the company, here, on Simple and on Spanish wikipedia. Matilda ^talk 22:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions and also at list of Business related discussions plusWikipedia:WikiProject Fisheries and Fishing. —Matilda ^talk 00:10, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

In this debate, the notability of the website is being called into question. I think that if I can show that this company is the market leader in this sector, than this would no longer be an issue (just as Google and yahoo! are leaders in their sectors and thus have articles). I know that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine (for those who do not know, Norway is one of the biggest fishing/seafood exporting nations in the world) that will show FIS to be the market leader and therefore proving its notability. Since this would be an external and independent source, the validity of that would not be questioned. I shall post that on this discussion page and on the list of sources as soon as it arises. The fact that FIS has a traffic rank of 300 000 doesn’t effect the notability since this is only proportional to the market in which it is in (This figure does not take into account the fact that the Japanese FIS is on a separate domain so the figure is actually closer to 200 000). Ferrari on the world car market has no real significance (less than 1% of the total market), however on the LUXURY car market it is much more significant. This is a similar case here, on the overall view of the World Wide Web, FIS is small, but within its market its huge.

- Removed Tag - There is sufficiant coverage now and the statistical information is now well sourced.Spindoctor69 (talk) 20:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Written Like an Advertisement

The second issue raised is that the article appears to be written like an advertisement. This is no reason for deletion since this contradicts the spirit and philosophy of Wikipedia. If an article is not up to encyclopedic standard, then it is modified and updated until it is up to that standard. Simply deleting an article because you don’t like it or understand the sector in which it talk about is a complete contradiction of the very concept of Wikipedia and the fact that it is written like an advertisement should give people encouragement to carry on improving Wikipedia. The competitors of this website are not listed and this is open for anyone to do if they think that this would add balance to this article.

- Removed Tag - I think I have now solved the major part of the problem by removing the talk about competitors. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Accusations of SPAM

In response to this accusation on "spamming" Wikipedia, this is again nonsense. The site has three languages: English, Spanish and Japanese as well as a large majority of the English users not having English as their first language. It is therefore equally significant to have articles for all three languages as well as a simplified English version since those are all of equal importance on the site. This also calls into question if we should be discussing this on the English Wikipedia site since each language has different administrators and log-ins.

If Wikipedians continue like this, Wikipedia risks becoming an organization similar to Académie française (French Academy) or the Real Academia Española (Spanish Academy). This is something for the people who take part in this debate to consider. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 02:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment. When adding sub-heads on AFD, please make sure to make the header a level below the main AFD subject line otherwise it messes up the indexing on the page. I've made the repair. No opinion on this AFD. 23skidoo (talk) 02:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply re accusations of Spam etc - this user: Spindoctor69 (talk · contribs) is a single purpose account here and on at least two other wikipedias (Simple and Spanish) having put up this article on those projects too. Per Wikipedia:Spam: There are two types of wikispam. These are advertisements masquerading as articles and external link spamming. In my view this is an advertisement masquerading as an article. There are no reliable sources to establish notability per WP:COMPANY. I do not think deleting articles on non-notable companies puts us at risk of becoming like the Académie française - in fact we run the opposite risk if we do not have some criteria for inclusion - hence our development of the notability guideline for companies and our policy against advertising. Essentially if this company is as notable as claimed, including a market leader in its segment, that fact will be reported by reliable sources, those sources can be cited and our guideline on notability will be met. Without those sources to support the claims, I stand by my accusations of spam and advertising - the use of wikipedia to promote a non-notable company. --Matilda ^talk 23:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails the notability guidelines for companies and web content as it has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. What coverage there is is either advertising or trivial references as a collater of fish prices (example). Re the above comments - a future article in a Norwegian newspaper might qualify as a secondary source, but as it has not yet been published its content cannot be assessed. If reliable sources are expected soon perhaps userfying the article might be worthwhile until those sources are available. I agree Alexa rankings don't indicate much, and that apparent advertising can be rewritten. But these are side issues - the key point is the absence of independent sources to verify notability. Euryalus (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, based on my being almost undecided. Googling it produces few results, but http://www.fis.com/fis/mediakit/2007/overview-e.html shows a not insubstantial organisation, though I do appreciate that this may contain trade puffery. The putative Norwegian article will be enough to tip me into a simple keep. I do recommend that the article is "de-advertorialed" and that other reliable sources are found for it. If the consensus is to delete I recommend temporary userfication to allow more work to be done before republishing. Just losing the article seems to me to be silly. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 07:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - there are no reliable sources cited to support the claims - the organisation's own web site is not sufficient. It is not a matter of other reliable sources - it is a matter of any sources.--Matilda ^talk 07:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I think that "no source" is an exaggeration, the Alexa information and the information from the web directory are a start. As soon as this other article is printed, I shall post it here and add it to the sources on the article. --Spindoctor69 (talk) 12:15, 17 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  - Comment - we have a guideline on reliable sources - the Alexa information and the information from web directory do not meet that guideline. To clarify my comment above - what I should have said is sources cited - I have inserted that word above in italics to make clear--Matilda ^talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This issue simply comes down to whether or not a suitable source, external to the company, can be found. You keep offering Alexa, Spindoctor69, but Alexa is not the sort of source we are after. Alexa just reports on the traffic statistics of any website. Nor do I necessarily agree with your claim, Matilda, that "there are no reliable sources", and I wonder why you would think that you can so categorically assert that. The organisation is known as FIS, and FIS, unfortunately, is an acronym widely used for other purposes. Google shows over 20 million hits. This makes its very difficult to filter out references for the FIS we are after. Also, the site seems to get most of its traffic from non English speaking areas. The other difficulty is that this is a specialist site, aimed at managers in the seafood industry. It is a tool that insiders know about, rather than a site that is the subject of interest in the general media. What turned me round to thinking the site is notable was examining the link for "User comments" which can be found on the left sidebar of the main page of FIS, towards the bottom. If you actually check these organisations out, to see if they exist as notable companies, together with the names of their claimed managers, then for the most part they check out. Clearly FIS could not get away with these claims if they are false. It was this fact that decided me, some time ago, that the company was indeed notable. However, this somewhat indirect evidence is not in a form that can be cited in Wikipedia. So my position is that the company is notable, but there remains the task of finding an appropriate supporting citation. You say, Spindoctor69, that sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine. That may do it. --Geronimo20 (talk) 18:27, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in reply - as per my annotation above - what I meant to say is no reliable sources have been cited - I have clarified above. If sources exist then they should be cited and we can then assess the article against the notability guideline:
  A company, corporation, organization, team, religion, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, and independent of the subject.
  As far as I can see there is nothing that supports FIS meeting that guideline - some yet to be published article is not significant coverage in secondary sources (note the plural). --Matilda ^talk 21:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - With some quite diligent searching I have found a passing mention in the New York Times - it is not a significant coverage in a secondary source though - Whenever you're curious, go to fis.com, click on Market Prices, select Tokyo-Chuo under Far East Prices, and scroll down to Bluefin [4] . All other links I found were back to the company's own web site. --Matilda ^talk 00:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC) - PS You can't follow the NYT reporter's suggestion anly lionger unless you are a signed-up member. --Matilda ^talk 00:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:39, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have found sources which establish notability. I have put them on the article. There are various sites noting fis.com as the market leader or the leading news company. I think this should be enough to end this discussion and now add more information on the company citing these sources.

Spindoctor69 (talk) 21:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC) — Spindoctor69 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Thanks for your work on fixing the "advertising" issue - its much improved. However there remains a problem with notability - you've added additional links but all of them are either trivial mentions (eg simply lists of information providers including FIS) or advertising by FIS on other websites. None are significant mentions capable of meting the notability requirements. This problem isn't unique to FIS - a news provider can have a worldwide audience but no coverage of the provider itself. Is there anything in financial press anywhere, about FIS operations or structure (that is, actual articles on FIS by organisations not directly associated with it)? I can't find any but you might have better resources than I. As it stands there's still not much here to meet the notability guideline. Euryalus (talk) 22:02, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The other relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (web) which requires

The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
- This criterion includes reliable published works in all forms, such as newspaper and magazine articles, books, television documentaries, websites, and published reports by consumer watchdog organizations. except for the following:
  - Media re-prints of press releases and advertising for the content or site.
  - Trivial coverage, such as (1) newspaper articles that simply report the Internet address, (2) newspaper articles that simply report the times at which such content is updated or made available, (3) a brief summary of the nature of the content or the publication of Internet addresses and site or (4) content descriptions in Internet directories or online stores.
The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization.
The content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster

perhaps these criteria are more helpful --Matilda ^talk 23:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- but the organisation doesn't seem to meet any of these 3 criteria these either :-( --Matilda ^talk 21:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rjd0060 (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question on 17 September User:Spindoctor69 wrote sometime in the next week, an article is being printed in a Norwegian financial magazine - has it been published yet?--Matilda ^talk 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep importance in the industry is demonstrated, though the sources could be better. However, even clearly notable information services are difficult to get information on. The supply information, but nobody thinks to write about them. Seems descriptive to me, not like an advertisement. DGG (talk) 00:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I looked around, and it appears that the company is used as a reference site. Here are three sites that do so.

[5] [6] [7] Some other places simply list it as a source, which, of course, doesn't say too much, but is worthy of mention. [8] [9] [10] [11] Jjamison (talk) 23:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Hi, I'm new to editing wikipedia, but from what I can see there is very little reason to delete this article. It's probably quite difficult to find other media companies who write articles about competing media companies but these sources appear to show that the site is used and widely recognised. Organisations such as NAFO are notable sources and if they are using this site then it shows that this site is worthy of an article. Redgator5 (talk) 14:18, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Further comment The company appears to meet the third criteria listed by Matilda "he content is distributed via a medium which is both respected and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster". Redgator5 (talk) 14:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC) — Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

What Wikipedia is Not i was looking around Wikipedia and found this article: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. There is a section which is called 'Wikipedia is not a Beurocracy'. I think this section fits this article well since it seems to be a specific case. There are no internet publications which have significant coverage on this site, however I think that notability has been established since it has been used as a source by some very notable organizations. What Wikipedia says in its guidelines for a case like this is that we must 'ignore the rules for the sake of improving Wikipedia'. Having this article benefits Wikipedia despite it being short of sources. Although what Spindoctor69 says about Wikipedia turning into the French Academy is a little extreme, I think he is correct and this rule was created to combat that so I think we should abide by it. Redgator5 (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Redgator5 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Delete as per WP:SPAM. I note a considerable amount of POV pushing related to this indicating possible conflict of interest. Michellecrisp (talk) 03:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While I note that Spindoctor69 (talk · contribs) is a new account (and one that has contributed almost exclusively on this topic), notwithstanding that he is new to wikipedia, I regard the following interactions with me as inappropriate:
- removing referenced information I added and anotability tag with the edit summary Deleted Vandalism by User:Matilda [12]
- requesting me to close the debate [13]
- Instructing me that I should have ignored all rules and inferring that I had disrupted Wikipedia to make a point (presumably by nominating this article for deletion) [14] - I find this last interaction particularly inappropriate - even from a new user!

I am raising these interactions here so that the community can be aware that I have been accused of disrupting wikipedia to make a point and to state that I most vehemently refute the motivation implied. --Matilda ^talk 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in response - Asking you to close the debate was a missunderstanding, I believed that you were responsable for that, but was obviously mistaken. After recieving a rude and obrupt comment (not the first) from you, I could see that you don't want to assume good faith. The Wikipedia:ignore all the rules referance was actually a suggestion that you SHOULD ignore the rules from time to time instead of blindly following them. 190.246.1.14 Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A SPAM article at best - this article does not provide notability in any of the references (I have checked through them all and they are either self-referencing or adverts). Wikipedia is not an advertising service. Indeed the Alexa comments make the article look directly like spam (please, your average porn site will have a ALEXA rating in the 10,000 or less but there not notable either). Reference to Google Hits obtained at the bottom of the page is also a dead give away. Put simply this is a fishing information service (there are several in my town alone - indeed my brother in law writes for one) what however makes this one notable? Nothing detailed at this time. Finally I note Michellecrisp's comments above and thus for the reference of the admin closing (although I am sure you will see it yourself immediately) it appears clear to me that there is at least one SPA and plenty of COI or similar editing by the main article contributor contained in this debate.--VS ^talk 05:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment- Alexa does not establish notability, especially if you're talking about member only sites. Sources in notable organisations establish notability and this article now has them.Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Well-referenced article about notable organisation. Spurious nomination by disruptive, single purpose account. Delete nominator. --Gene_poole (talk) 05:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have not demonstrated how it meets WP:CORP? Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent Gene - always a joy to get your sarcastic comments - brings a certain light relief. Thanks again.--VS ^talk 05:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I get it, sarcasm! Michellecrisp (talk) 05:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sockpuppet accounts are strictly forbidden in deletion discussions. See Wikipedia:SOCK#Voting_and_other_shows_of_support Michellecrisp (talk) 05:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment sockpuppet suspicion officially raised and new evidence that an editor has tried to split one keep vote to keep into two has been provided.--VS ^talk 12:45, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP user - I accidentaly made some comments while I was not logged in, my computer had logged me out. I have re-instated the comments under my name. I'm sorry about that and I hope we can assume good faith with this and move on. Spindoctor69 (talk) 19:21, 25 September 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. Cirt (talk) 23:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Views of Lyndon LaRouche[edit]

Views of John Locke

View of Adam Smith

Views of Benjamin Franklin

Views of George Washington

Views of Alexander Hamilton

Views of Thomas Jefferson

Views of Abraham Lincoln

Views of Franklin D. Roosevelt

All of these are red links. (I checked "Political views of..." and Political positions of..." for these individuals, and those are also all red links.) I could go on further, but I think you get the idea. Doesn't this strike anyone else as a bit absurd? We don't have "Views of..." articles for some of the most influential philosophers and statesmen in American history, but we do for a guy who has never won any political office, has had no real effect on American government or society, and has perhaps a few thousand followers at most? This is a clear and blatant violation of our policies on undue weight.

More than that, this article has been a net detriment to Wikipedia ever since it was created. It has served as a platform for POV-pushing (on both sides), sock puppetry, and incivility. Whatever marginal encyclopedic merit it might have is far outweighed by the trouble it has caused. One article on Lyndon LaRouche is enough. *** Crotalus *** 22:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your argument is basically WP:WAX. We don't have Views of Abraham Lincoln, but does that mean we shouldn't? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A decent article could certainly be written on the subject, but generally I would think that a political figure's views and beliefs should be covered in their biography, especially when those beliefs (and, in the case of statesmen, the actions resulting from said beliefs) are why the person is important in the first place. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are numerous reliable sources for Views of George Washington, besides those of the other named persons. I might find them quite encyclopedic. I have often asked myself what Washington or Jefferson would have to say about the recent world conquests and adventures of the U.S. military. Edison (talk) 23:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, those might be good articles to have. My point, however, was that LaRouche is a far more marginal figure that that, and yet we have a huge page on his views consisting of undue weight and POV-pushing. *** Crotalus *** 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Should such content maintained on the page about the holder of the view? I.e. I would expect a page about Locke to discuss the political and philosophical views of Locke, and by the way that's where I would look for them if I were looking for them in Wikipedia. I suggest that a merger of this article with Lyndon LaRouche is the appropriate course of action. philosofool (talk) 23:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All of our articles are "a net detriment to Wikipedia"... unless you take into account the reason Wikipedia exists in the first place. This page provides a (more or less) balanced overview of a topic with respect to which balance seems to be sadly lacking elsewhere; if people are reading it and learning from it, then it is helping to achieve Wikipedia's mission. As for your undue weight argument, you are arguing not from the premise that people are more interested in the views of Locke, Smith, Lincoln, etc than in the views of LaRouche, but from the premise that they ought to be. One might just as well argue that all our Pokemon articles should be deleted until such time as we have an article on the Philosophy of John Locke, since the undue weight in that case is surely much more absurd than the example proffered here. Hesperian 23:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with your above argument is that almost nobody actually does read the Views of Lyndon LaRouche article. According to stats.grok.se, it only had 1,548 page views in August 2008. And keep in mind that a lot of these were probably by Wikipedians editing, or edit-warring, on the article. Bulbasaur, a relatively marginal Pokemon-related article, has 18,517 hits in that same time frame — more by an order of magnitude, and hasn't caused anywhere near the amount of trouble. Articles on the historical figures I listed above do much better; John Locke has 78,312 hits in August 2008 while Lyndon LaRouche's main article has just 22,198, many of them from patrollers and edit warriors. (Barack Obama, a contemporary political figure who people in the real world actually care about, has over 1.3 million hits, while John McCain has over 900,000. Their VPs do even better, probably because people don't know a lot about them but genuinely want to know more.) Yes, popular culture is overrepresented compared to important political and philosophical issues; but at least an argument can be made that people actually care about popular culture. Outside of Wikipedia, though, no one gives a damn about Lyndon LaRouche. Now, just because an article gets a tiny handful of page views doesn't mean that it is a bad article or should be deleted. But, traditionally, we have deleted articles when they are both marginal in terms of importance and they create a great deal of trouble on the wiki. Examples of this include Brian Peppers, Allison Stokke, Daniel Brandt, and Public Information Research, among others. *** Crotalus *** 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This article may well deserve to be deleted. Unfortunately, this AfD nomination fails to make any valid argument for same. The non-existence of the other named articles is not, in and of itself, an argument that this article should not exist. If the article has problems with OR and POV, fix them, but that is not a reason for deletion. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I'd prefer to see it shortened somehow and merged into Lyndon LaRouche. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but remove non-neutral adjectives throughout. It does make it seem reasonable to break out this rather complex body of material. As for the analogues cited, I checked and found that for Lincoln, WP has Abraham Lincoln on slavery, and IMHO the Jefferson article could use a similar expansion--and perhaps a few others. I don't see that the extent of viewing of this article has anything to do with keeping it. And the precedent of the other articles mentioned is a very bad precedent indeed,for at least some of the 4--IMHO, defeats for NPOV. DGG (talk) 00:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep.
- There are several categories covering these articles, such as Category:Political positions by person, Category:Political positions of politicians, and even Category:Political positions of mayors and leaders of cities in the United States. We have Views expressed by Michael Savage and Politics of Bill O'Reilly. So there is a precedent for have these types of articles on mid-level politicians and pundits.
- All of these articles are subsidiary articles from their main articles, the bios. In every case they have been split off of the main articles, in accordance with WP:SUMMARY. They inherit the notability of their parent article. There are many notable individuals that don't have an article like Isaac Newton's early life and achievements, but that is not a reason to delete one.
- In the case of this article, the subject has complicated and unusual political, economic, and philosophic beliefs. Those beliefs are actively promoted in a number of countries, and it is conceivable that people may come to Wikipedia for more information on the topic.
- Having an article about the subject's views allows the main biography to remain limited to the more purely biographical information. The biography is itself quite long, so a merger of significant info from this article would require major editing to keep the bio at a reasonable length.
- Many of the problems with this and other articles related to this topic can be attributed to a banned editor, Herschelkrustofsky (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Through a series of sockpuppet accounts going back to 2004, he has played the principal role in writing these articles and has been a consistent obstacle to their improvement. A set of socks going back a year or more have just been identified and blocked. Without their interference it may now be possible to edit down these articles and make substantial improvements.
Finally, the topic of LaRouche's views is notable. There are hundreds of newspaper articles and dozens of magazine and a score of major book entries. Many of them devote space to discussing his views in some detail. There are 3rd-party sources devoted to particular aspects of his beliefs. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge It appears that this article is highly inflated, and deserves substantial editing down to something more manageable. There are large blocks of unnecessary quotes and duplication. I believe that once it is editted, then it should be of a size when it could be moved to Lyndon LaRouche. This article should not be deleted, since it does seem to have information on what LaRouche, who has been deemed notable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamison (talk • contribs) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Comment The reason why an article like this is necessary is that there was an Arbcom decision a few years back that LaRouche media outlets couldn't be cited, even as primary sources, in articles other than those about the LaRouche organization. So this article is necessary as its the only place to write about the LaRouche political positions on a variety of topics, and it's too long to merge into the main article. Squidfryerchef (talk)

Keep, Comment LaRouche is the most prolific anti-Semitic propagandist/ideologist of our times, and has had a significant if often under the radar influence on public opinion and the press, especially in Latin America.--Dking (talk) 23:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak, barely imperceptible Keep, and then take a buzzsaw to it Pare this dinosaur down to a size commensurate to its noteworthiness. I.e., keep only those views that have reliable sourcing indicate that they are notable outside of the parallel orbiting universes of Laroucheworld and the world of his circle of professional critics. 90% plus of the article is currently sourced to Larouche pubs. I'm aware of the argument made on the article talk page that there is some public service being performed by making these views accessible. I'm not the least bit convinced of the validity of that argument (nor its novel interpretation of the purpose of this encyclopedia). And DKing's claim about Larouche's twist on le question juif being the most "prolific" these days would not survive a walking stroll down a Teheran street or a charming morning tuning into a popular Polish radio station.. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 16:57, 24 September 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. After discounting all the SPAs and invalid votes this comes down to two keeps and three deletes. BJ^Talk 01:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Magibon[edit]

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

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

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

This was considered a few months ago and closed as "no consensus." I think a new debate is needed. Additional sources have not emerged since then, and the ones cited do little to establish real notability, and don't really verify the information in the article. Since the two articles already linked there seems to be little or no commentary about this person from reliable sources in either Japanese or English. Chick Bowen 21:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline, no reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, unless more sources to demonstrate notability are found. One appearance on a TV show and two interviews in Japanese Weekly Playboy do not make a sufficient notability case under WP:BIO. Almost nothing in GoogleNews: possibly 1 hit (in Vietnamese) in recent news[15] and nothing before that[16]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, This article has far as I have read, has always been stubby due to a lackingness of reliable sources WP:RS or the inclusion of unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR. I suggest this article should receive nothing short of a STRONG DELETE has it carries little if not no point of being informative or anything that warrants further keeping as an article of wikipedia WP:NOT. Campus101 (talk) 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ten Pound Hammer said it best...and first! Ecoleetage (talk) 01:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep: I have attempted time and again to find solid facts on her and there is absolutely nothing. I tried my hardest to improve this article but there is no helping it. The original content was heavily biased and any attempts at fixing it have been met with contempt and revert edit wars in an attempt to restore it back to its original state. In short, this article is not worth the effort of keeping as it is of low quality, does not meet wikipedian standards, and just causes trouble. I agree with Campus101 about the article not adhering to the unrelated biased fantasy WP:OR rules and regulations.Yariau neko (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: After scouring google I have found this article, which has brightened my hopes for the success of this article. The article, if kept, will need to be heavily monitored and rewritten, but it looks like it is staring to have a bit of hope. Thus I am changing my vote from strong delete to weak keep.Yariau neko (talk) 04:34, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Magibon is one of the most popular people on Youtube. Her subscribers are constantly growing. She is mentioned in Newspapers around the world. Some people have tried to make it impossible to write this article. Double standards were applied on this article. It has the largest discussion page of all Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. Most discussions were simply objections who came from people who made no constructive contributions but tried to to interrupt the work on this article. The article was vandalized several times. Magibon is as notable as any of the Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia. I have checked the other articles about Youtubers, if Magibons article is deleted, 95% of the other Youtubers could be removed from Wikipedia for the same sleazy reasons. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, therefore people naturally expect to find informations about internet celebrities that everyone is talking about. If this article will be deleted, it would be a proof that Wikipedia is not neutral and fair.--Firithfenion (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you give some specific examples of these "newspapers around the world"? Thanks. Chick Bowen 18:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Norwegian: New Trend on Youtube another one: Danish Newsreport Here is a Youtube videoclip from a Mexican Newsreport Here is Youtube videoclip about a report from a swedish journalist from the Aftonbladet TV. Magibons channel has more subscribers than the official Youtube channel of Britney Spears. Her influence is constantly growing. Compare this to most of the other Youtubers, mentioned on Wikipedia and you will come to the conclusion that it would be a gap to leave one of the most discussed and imitated Youtubers of all time out of Wikipedia. She is definitely an internet phenomenon. --Firithfenion (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia Japan has the article, why Wikipedia English should not. tribaL_iLLusion (talk) 12:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— tribaL_iLLusion (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Not really a convincing reason to keep, something from the realm of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. English and Japanese Wikipedias are two independent wikis with their own separate rules and standards for inclusion. The subject may be notable according to the standards of the Japanese Wikipedia but not of English Wikipedia. Ultimately, what matters is whether or not a convincing case for passing one of the English Wikipedia's notability guidelines, such as WP:BIO, can be made. Nsk92 (talk) 20:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Magibon is a celebrity. That's why the article must stay. She has appeared in other media than just youtube. That's a fact. —Preceding (talk) 13:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)— Tosjjo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Just stating that someone is a celebrity is not enough. It is necessary to produce verifiable references to reliable sources that convincingly demonstrate this. Nsk92 (talk) 20:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

keep Above, but, being a celeb. dosn't make you notable, nor does having youtube subscriptions,--Jakezing (talk) 13:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err-r, so why exactly do you think the article deserves a "keep" then? Nsk92 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This Wikipedia article about Magibon refers readers to sources of reliable information about Magibon which she herself endorses as factual. The links, and references in this Magibon article are verifiable by following said links. This article deserves to remain intact. Djk_dnb (talk) 12:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.137.8 (talk) Note: SineBot is correct: the preceding comment was added by 76.121.137.8 as this diff shows[17], even though the comment includes a signature of User:Djk_dnb. — 76.121.137.8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Nsk92 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep What we have here is a constant raid on the Wikipedia article about Magibon by members of the infamous web site, Encyclopedia Dramatica. It is clear they have an alternative agenda to do everything in their power to defame the name of this young lady, Magibon. The facts presented in this article are verifiable and yet the members of ED will not relent. Their obsession with destroying the reputation of Magibon has nothing to do with assuring the accuracy of this article and everything to do with their agenda. Wikipedeia should not give in to the bullies of ED and their attempt to distort the rules in order to accomplish removing Magibon from this online encyclopedia. She deserves the same consideration and respect that other YouTube personalities have received from Wikipedia.--Drstulu (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)— Drstulu (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Keep The information and links provided in this Magibon article is verifiable. Other internet celebrities have their own article, and Wikipedia-Japan have Magibon article. Wikipedia is an internet encyclopedia, it is normal to have articles about internet phenomenon and celebrities. --Harmonic_gear (talk) 03:59, 23 September 2008 UTC}— Harmonic gear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Keep Magibon is a phenomena. She successfully managed to gather many many people around her from all over the world. So, i think these people deserve to have an English reliable source of information about their Magi =). And, yes ... some of us know Magi and I'm sure these info is correct. it helped me so much as a foreigner (Egyptian) Magifan ^_^ --Ahmed_Naguib (talk) 13:33, 23 September 2008 GMT Note:Although the preceding comment has a signature of Ahmed_Naguib, the comment was in fact added by User:41.232.193.208 as this diff[18] shows. This was the only WP edit by 41.232.193.208 to date. Nsk92 (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC) [reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Nsk92. The Norwegian and Danish newspaper articles are barely more than a paragraph. Something more substantial would be needed. --Crusio (talk) 13:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Salon.com had an extensive article[19] about the Magibon internet meme (under the name MRirian). Salon.com is a reliable source.--Section8pidgeon (talk) 09:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, all right, but I feel it necessary to point out that that article is about the impossibility of verifying any information about the subject. Chick Bowen 00:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep, the Salon article is probably just (barely) enough to push this over the notability line. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:55, 25 September 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 WP:CSD#G10'd by User:Bearcat. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 22:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Davidcarritis[edit]

hoax/made up, I think based on this[20] it is making fun of some football player named David. - Icewedge (talk) 21:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Made up material, attacking a footballer? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 21:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a gross violation of the WP:BLP policy and an attack on the footballer. Cunard (talk) 21:53, 21 September 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 SAT. I will let other editors take care of the actual merge, as it appears it was already done once in the article history and there is clear consensus here to do so. Cirt (talk) 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

SAT Essay[edit]

I was bold and merged this article into its main article SAT, asking to use talk before reverting. Another user reverted and then added a short note on the talk page why. While yes, the SAT Essay was covered in a NYT article, I do not see independent notability for the topic. The SAT Essay is simply less than 1/3 of one section of the SAT and does not have notability on its own. Not that it counts, but the only articles linking here are SAT and the See Also section of Essay. It was a news story when the section was added to the exam three years ago, but I see no reason why this short article with little room for addition and little independent notability cannot be merged with the main article. Reywas92 ^Talk 21:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Just because it is notable does not mean it needs its own article. Z gin der 2008-09-21T21:44Z (UTC)
Merge It's pretty meaningless outside the context of the SAT. Do the math and reading sections have their own articles? ce1984 (talk) 21:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SAT per above. RockManQ (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per all the above Beeblebrox (talk) 01:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with SAT. Neither does ACT have separate article for Writing section. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:15, 24 September 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 Withdraw and Redirect. I think that the voter is trying to me look stupid. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 01:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kiss My Ass (Jadakiss album)[edit]

According to the only reliable source in the article, the release date and the title is unconfirmed. Schuym1 (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jadakiss#Discography until there is actually something to report based on real sources, per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:BAND#Albums Beeblebrox (talk) 01:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(You could just withdraw the nom and redirect as the guidelines I cited are very clear about this sort of thing) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Maybe earlier in 08, we could redirect. But, he is talking about that a lot more.

--Piazzajordan2 (Talk.) 06:21, 29 September 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 Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland. The article itself was deleted, a redirect is given for convenience if anyone goes looking for this article title. Cirt (talk) 23:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AFL Central Queensland Highlands[edit]

Lack of verifiable information --Snigbrook ^(talk) 21:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. -- Bduke (Discussion) 22:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Does nothing to assert notability and hardly compares to the other leagues. I changed one false note (league formed in 1983, not in the late 1960's). AFL-Cool (talk) 05:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Could not find any secondary sources using Google News All Dates. The only primary sources found are derivatives of the wikipedia article. Article does not meet WP:N and is unlikely to do so.--Takver (talk)
Merge It looks like that this really belongs in [Australian rules football leagues in regional Queensland], where several other affiliates of [AFL Queensland] are listed (some have their own articles). It would seem that the league is notable enough for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjamison (talk • contribs) 00:14, 23 September 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. MBisanz ^talk 16:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A voice from the sky[edit]

Contested prod. Film is in pre-production, and there is no assertion of notability to suggest that the film would warrant a Wikipedia article even if it was finished. Conflict of interest is apparent as well: The creator, User:Chantru, shares the name of the director, writer and star. CyberGhostface (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reliable sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom, as failing WP:V. The only google hits lead to Wikipedia:[21]. Nsk92 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No reliable sources, not verifiable, looks like conflict of interest. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these names only show up in facebook pages. Corvus cornix_talk 00:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And the voice says...Delete Fails WP:MOVIE. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:54, 22 September 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) 23:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Ronj[edit]

Contested prod; Article seriously fails short because of a lack of 1) asserted notability and 2) independent, reliable sources, thus failing WP:RS--Thomas.macmillan (talk) 01:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 14:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This looks like a bit of a coatrack on which to hang the history of the Ross House. If that's notable as an historic building, it should have its own article, mentioning the coffee house operation briefly. If not, then there doesn't need to be an article at all. AlexTiefling (talk) 17:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The coffee shop is non-notable, and Ross House appears to be as well. Jjamison (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the coffee house is not notable, and a check into the National Register of Historical Places shows no listing for Ross House in Lewiston, Maine so there does not appear to be any notability to the building in which the coffee shop is housed. -- Whpq (talk) 16:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:17, 24 September 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. Rjd0060 (talk) 23:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Mallikarjuna Murugharajendra Swamiji[edit]

Non notable bio with no reliable sources. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. —Ism schism (talk) 21:16, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The lack of citations from reliable sources in this article leads me to conclude that the article is not in compliance with the verifiability policy. Stifle (talk) 18:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources to establish notability + some parts of the article seem to be written like spam. Gizza^Discuss ^© 03:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources, not notable, and probably unverifiable. Tempodivalse (talk) 21:15, 21 September 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. Unlikely people will be searching for "Commercial Laser Tag Systems", and consensus to delete, so no need for a redirect. Cirt (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial Laser Tag Systems[edit]

Wikipedia is not a directory. Why not just add phone numbers and addresses too? Wholly unencyclopedic - fails WP:LIST. ukexpat (talk) 20:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, though dreadful to read, and lacking any structure or ability to transfer knowledge, the topic in itself is worthy an article. The solution is to rename it, remove 90% of the content, and rewrite the remaining 10%, not deletion. Arsenikk ^(talk) 21:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't "lacking...ability to transfer knowledge" the definition of unencyclopedic?! – ukexpat (talk) 14:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SYNTH. Stifle (talk) 18:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it could be sourced, the only section potentially worth keeping is the first overview section, and that section doesn't warrant a separate article outside Lasertag. Sashaman (talk) 19:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xy7 (talk) 20:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a long list of companies and what they do. KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No 3rd-party sources to establish that a list of equipment manufacurers is worth compiling. A list of notable systems that have WP articles would be acceptable, but since none of the systems appear notable at the time being that would be premature. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note I went ahead and chopped the directory content, see if this looks any better, although it could certainly use more sources. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Without the directory, it looks like an expanded version of the "Equipment and technology" section of [Lasertag]. Move it there. Jjamison (talk) 00:23, 23 September 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. lifebaka++ 05:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slovenian Parliament[edit]

This article should be deleted, as the institution simply doesn't exist, neither legally nor functionally. There is only the National Assembly and the National Council, but they are separate and independent bodies. They only share the same building, which is called the Parliament. Eleassar ^{my talk} 20:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While the Slovenian constitution doesn't seem to explicitely define an entity called "parliament", the term is at the very least used informally and frequently, as attests the many links to this article or hits found on Google (for instance recent news on Google [22]). Besides that the National Assembly and the National Council are separate and "independent" strikes me as a defining feature of a bicameral parliament. From having quickly read the Slovenian constitution, I don't see a significant difference from other countries with "parliaments". That the two houses share the same building is another indication that they constitute a whole. The article can be improved instead of deleted, even if it's only to explain that there is no official entity called "parliament" in Slovenia (if that is indeed the case). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Equendil (talk • contribs) 21:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the lists of Slovenia- and Politics-related deletion discussions. —Ev (talk) 22:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Equendil. Having two Wikipedia articles, i.e. one for each chamber, is overkill for most parliamentary systems, as demonstrated by the stubby nature of National_Council_(Slovenia) and National_Assembly_(Slovenia). VG ☎ 00:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from everything else, the building is surely a notable building, and the nominator admits that the building is called the Parliament: the United States Capitol has no mention in the Constitution, but I don't think that's a problem. If there's so much problem with a single article on the two houses (which I don't see as a problem anyway), we could turn this into an article just about the building. Nyttend (talk) 04:10, 22 September 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. Author blocked, as username suggested s/he was only here for spamming. Blueboy 96 22:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Emailarchitect Email Server[edit]

Fails WP:Note, no reviews found via google. Blowdart | ^talk 20:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article could be eligible to a speedy delete because it does not assert the significance or importance of the subject (CSD A7). Beyond that, the subject doesn't appear notable, Google hits consist in a long list of download sites with the occasional description. Equendil Talk 21:49, 21 September 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) 00:01, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kolem[edit]

Surely fails any test of WP:notability. No references, a few google hits on fan sites. TrulyBlue (talk) 19:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to The Next Phase, and delete the redirect. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 19:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not-notable. Even the Star Trek wiki has very little on this [23]. I don't think that there is anything worth merging, but a redirect to The Next Phase might be useful. Bláthnaid ^talk 20:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least a mention of it should be made somewhere. The "quad" unit has a mention on Wikipedia already. Amhantar (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Beam me up, there is nothing here. dicdef & not notable. Equendil Talk 21:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Entirely non-notable, very minor fictional element. No content to merge anywhere. Redirect is unnecessary as this is a very unlikely search term. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 22:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No satisfaction of WP:N by this fictional unit of energy created in some moment by a writer for a sci-fi program. Edison (talk) 23:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Dictdef and can probably be considered neologism as well. VG ☎ 00:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't even seet he point of the redirect. it's not in the article on the episode, and I don't see that it needs to be. There is some level of detail where relegation to a fan wiki does make sense. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree this is only just a detail but then please explain to me why other units are allowed to be mentioned here on wikipedia... Maybe it could be added to the technology section of the Romulan article? Amhantar (talk) 10:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you think that other articles are equally non-notable you can propose to delete them too, or bring them here as articles for deletion. Generally Wikipedia does not accept the argument that similar stuff exists to be a valid reason for keeping a particular article. TrulyBlue (talk) 11:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:18, 24 September 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 - please note this is a second closing of this debate. I thank those that spent further time attempting to determine notability. I note for the record that whilst notability is not verified at this time it may occur relatively soon in the future. --VS ^talk 10:51, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sharp & Smooth[edit]

Fails WP:MUSIC, WP:N. Hardly an assertion of notability in the article, references only mention the name, and I find no significant coverage in reliable sources via google. Has been speedily deleted and recreated before. Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nom, 0 claim to notability mboverload @ 23:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, article fails to establish notability as per WP:MUSIC. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So please explain the difference in notability between Sharp and Smooth and 10,000 other DJ's that are listed in Wikipedia? You do a quick google search, only find a few pieces of information and that automatically means they are not notable? You obviously know nothing about house music so you are 'obviously' not the right people to judge —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.133.94 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You are very welcome to prove otherwise, either by finding significant coverage in reliable sources, or by showing that the duo passes any of the inclusion criteria for musicians and ensembles. I notice that you added chart positions for three songs. If the positions you list in the SP column refer to a notable national music chart then the group is indeed notable by the criteria used for this encyclopaedia. --Amalthea^Talk 16:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I was a Sharp & Smooth expert I believe it would be a little easier, however I am one a fan of theirs and the incredibly popular DJ's and Producers whom they work with and who are most definitely notable and already exist here on Wikipedia. I will continue to research and compile as much information as possible, but they certainly deserve a spot on Wikipedia. (70.26.132.229 (talk) 05:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]
- If the two DJs were notable by the criteria then I'd agree. However I didn't find articles about them here or significant coverage anywhere else [24], and you can't inherit encyclopaedic notability by working with another notable person. --Amalthea^Talk 10:23, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not arguing that matter. What I am saying is that they are notable and with some time I will provide additional information pertaining to their notability. I have tried to reach out to the labels and various charts which they are linked to so I can get the correct and proper stats and facts. Please bare with me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.229 (talk) 14:49, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

2007 - Nominated for a Grammy (production for Arnold G - "You Got Me Hot") Reference provided. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 18:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- No they weren't. A song they mixed was "placed on the Official Ballot for the 2008 Grammy Awards", whatever that means. --Amalthea^Talk 18:52, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
yes - you are correct.. Just verified the info. What it MEANS is that their track was added to the ballots as a potential nomination. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with the criteria for musicians and ensembles, #10 states the following: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g. a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article.) Sharp & Smooth have been included in several "notable" compilations, including 1) Paul Van Dyk's "Cream IBIZA", 2) Peter Rauhofers "I Love Montreal", 3) Blended Sound 2 mixed by Chus & Ceballos, Joubin - AND MORE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.103.111 (talk) 03:49, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have to say, I'm no longer convinced that the duo is not notable. I cannot judge if this article is significant coverage in a reliable source, but mixes of the duo have been included in compilations of notable musicians (Paul van Dyk [25], Peter Rauhofer [26]). It's not passing WP:MUSIC#C10 with flying colors, but it might just pass it. Furthermore, there is no one other article where the information can be properly included. I suggest relisting this debate, for fresh opinions. --Amalthea^Talk 13:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the comment. On a personal note, I believe that we have spent enough time on this subject matter, and even with fresh opinions - the fact that Sharp & Smooth are are eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia in accordance with NONE other than the policy of Wikipedia (Inclusion on a compilation album etc.), I request that this issue be closed and have the time spent on Wiki inclusions that truly are not eligible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.132.8 (talk) 13:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --VS ^talk 11:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sources given insufficient to establish enough notability for its own article.--Boffob (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete recreated after AfD, dubiously notable, full of unsourced spam/vanity - why has it been relisted when should be speedied as spam whatever the notability? jimfbleak (talk) 17:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was relisted per my recommendation, since the two opinions to delete were given without the notability claim of WP:MUSIC#C10 being in the open. The promotional speech can easily be fixed, but after several recreations and an assertion of notability I'd like to have notability properly determined. --Amalthea^Talk 18:06, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. First off it seems this should be titled Sharp & Smooth. Secondly, I would say it's a week keep (per WP:MUSIC#C10 as noted above) as mixes aren't generally featured on CDs by some of the top DJs in the world without some press being generated. Having stated that they are also newish and as they seem to be quite successful in a short amount of time I would imagine press clippings are available to meet verifiability concerns. That is, they arguably are notable but I don't know what house music publications to look for. Googling Alex-Bass Miro-Amos David-Mimram "Sharp & smooth" turns up very little presently but it's easy to believe material is out there. -- Banjeboi 15:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Update. I've moved the article and AfD to correct band name per their website. -- Banjeboi 15:18, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Let's quote WP:MUSIC#C10: "But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article". So even this point of WP:MUSIC suggests there's not enough notability to keep as a separate article.--Boffob (talk) 18:43, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that may be fine for a single from an album or a soloist from a group but this is their main article. -- Banjeboi 04:25, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I've been doing some searching but having a tough time finding publications. I understand that its not quite the same as mainstream artists, and their music is certainly found everywhere, not to mention they do work with an impressive list of DJ's and producers. I agree about a "week pass. nevertheless, still a pass on my account though I would hope to see some more significant material added in the upcoming near future. (Cinquemillo (talk) 23:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC))[reply]

* Comment. Listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music, Wikipedia:WikiProject Electronic music and Wikipedia:WikiProject Rave. -- Banjeboi 04:37, 30 September 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. --VS ^talk 08:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quad (relationship)[edit]

Non-notable term, no external links or sources. KJS77 Join the Revolution 18:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in the process of making the article. Give me a chance to create it. If thats the case why hasn't the article Triad (relationship) been deleted Lord Balin (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There, now I've added external links, and references. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It really does seem improper to nominate an article for deletion fiften minutes after its creation and argue, even in part, that there aren't any sources establishing notability. If "quad" doesn't turn out to be a common enough term, we can still merge the content into a related article. — Æµ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɻɛ̃ⁿdˡi]} 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Dicdef. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we need to find sources before keeping an article. The glossary of the "Polyamory society" really doesn't cut it, even if that site is notable, mentioning in a glossary isn't useful, as Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. --Rividian (talk) 20:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and work on it. Ridiculous to delete this so early. If I were not often involved in trying to keep such articles I would simply close this as premature, and I urge some other admin to simply do so. It was nominated fourteen minutes after creation!. There should be several thousand references from ordinary literature to this, its not only something that occurs in extremely obscure circles. Triad is even more common of course, The formation of such relationship has undoubtedly also been discussed in psychological literature. Balin, Please follow up my hints for sources. It is perfectly true, as KJS said, that considerably more content is necessary. DGG (talk) 21:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Where are the sources? There might be thousands of sources about my cat, for all I know, but the argument that they might exist is worthless. core policy says we cannot have an article if sources aren't found... it doesn't say we can have one if people claim sources will be found one day. --Rividian (talk) 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative Keep but merging content into polyamory or similar subjects may be preferable. (is this perhaps a sort of permutation of a love triangle?) Of significant help to the merit of this article would be the inclusion of famous literary or film portrayals, discussions of it's significance, and so forth. The reason love triangles deserve their own article is because of such things. philosofool (talk) 23:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
KeepWell what about the article Triad (relationship), and dozens of other articles just like it in Wikipedia...small articles to be sure, but kept articles nonetheless. Shall we delete all of them as well. As a member and editor of the WikiProject for Sex and Sexuality, and as a polyamorist, I wanted to expand on the article about triads relationships and create one about quads. And yes i am trying to find more info.Lord Balin (talk) 23:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you vote on your own article, and does it count? KJS77 Join the Revolution 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone and anyone can vote at AfD, whether or not their vote "counts" is supposed to be based on the strength of their arguments. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep I say keep the article. There are many small articles, or stubs, that have few or no references, or external links. Should we get rid of them all? And no I don't really think this should be merged with Polyamory, if it gets expanded apon that is. User:Conron us (talk) 01:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If no sources can be found when requested, then yes. It's what our core content policy says, in no uncertain terms. --Rividian (talk) 02:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I cite the following articles as examples of articles without references: PolyFamilies and Threesome. Wikipedia is full of them, and we as editors should be trying to help by editing these articles.....not byt deleting brand new ones 15 minutes into there making.
  - They can't be truly improved in an encyclopedic way if references don't exist; articles exist to summarize already-existing sources. We aren't a publisher of original thought. I doubt "PolyFamilies" would survive an AFD, Threesome obviously would. But just because other unverifiable articles exist doesn't mean we have to allow infinite ones to be created. Again, I'm talking about a core policy here. --Rividian (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest this article be merged into Polyamory, that should settle things up.Lord Balin (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect Agree with Lord Balin, should go in Polyamory. Sashaman (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources do exist (here's Salon.com for example). It may be that the term isn't the separate topic outside of Polyamory, in which case a Merge would be possible, however, nominating an article for deletion 15 minutes after it was created seems very, very hasty. Give it time, it can always be merged. --GRuban (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Casual mentions exist but are there any sources about the term, per WP:NEO? --Rividian (talk) 01:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be about the term, it can be about the relationship, and there are certainly those, for example "Four better or four worse for marriage of four" Daily Telegraph. Give it some time, we can always merge to polyamory later, without the "find it now or die" pressure. Merging doesn't require an AfD, all we need to decide here is that deletion is inappropriate. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - It can be improved in someone's userspace until there's evidence it's not a neologism. There's no reason this has to be an article until it's proved it's more than a dictionary definition. --Rividian (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete More appropriate for a dictionary, plus I'm skeptical that this is a legitimate term rather than just slang. Also, to the author of the article: if you don't want your work to be deleted, cite it as you write it. You shouldn't make an article unless you already have sources, in which case you should cite those sources as soon as you create the article. --Mai Pen Rai (talk) 06:31, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the stuffy old telegraph has an article on it, i'm sure there will be others. deletion so soon after creation is unfriendly and not in the cooperative nature of WP. Let the appropriate talk pages decide on a merge or not, and if no improvment nominate for AfD in some months.Yobmod (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: here the Guardian national newspaper discuss it (using the term) [27], and polyamory sites explain it too [28]. Did anyone search for cites when they delete !voted?

- Did you not read where I said WP:NEO calls for sources about the term, rather than ones that just use it once or twice? --Rividian (talk) 17:25, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Isn't the second source "about the term"? And doesn't it's use in national newspapers hint that maybe it is an established term?Yobmod (talk) 14:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - My dear God in Heaven, did I wrong you Rividian in another life? Why this great and all seething desire to delete this simple little article. Lord Balin (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - I take this stance on many neologism AFDs, this is not the first and it won't be last. The solution isn't to say I'm being mean and try to make me feel guilty, it's to show the article can be fixed. --Rividian (talk) 17:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - But why work so hard on AFDs at all?. I am a Yeoman Editor, and have been on Wikipedia since November 2005, have edited almost 5,600 articles, and created more then 50. I work exclusively on editing and correction, and not on deletion. That I leave up to the administrators. Lord Balin (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because if an article violates policy, it must be deleted. May I ask if you are implying otherwise? –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - What does this have to do with anything? Either the article can be fixed to address the policy concerns or it can't. How much time you or I spend at AFD is irrelevant. --Rividian (talk) 21:12, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
MergeI think both this article and Triad (relationship) should both be merged into Polyamory.Lord Balin (talk) 01:26, 24 September 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 consensus. --VS ^talk 08:50, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Peace Brigade - NYC[edit]

Non-notable organistion. Still no assertion of notability on this third attempt at the article. References fail to supply Verifiable Notability. Don't understand why speedy was declined. TrulyBlue (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please read WP:CSD and you may attain some understanding of what a claim of notability is. Edison (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and I consider that the article "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". Specifically it says that the GPB is "one of many local activist groups" and does not show any notable achievements, individuals, protests or national reaction to them. Without sources and a specific claim, there's nothing in the article to show that this organisation isn't just a couple of senior ladies who managed to get themselves arrested and issued a press release. TrulyBlue (talk) 09:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete Non-notable organization with little to no outside coverage. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)~~[reply]
- Change to neutral. I did some further searching, and with the links provided below, I found that some notability exists, however I still don't believe it fully meets notability criteria. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 23:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 147 results in a Google News Archive search [29] seems to satisfy notability requirements. See the Associated Press story Apr 28, 2006 [30] from the Saint Louis Post Dispatch, a story in the Philadelphia Inquirer Jan 19, 2007 [31], one in the New Zealand Herald Mar 20, 2008 "The Granny Peace Brigade, accompanied by a few grandfathers, met at Times Square in New York to mark the fifth anniversary of the US led war in Iraq."[32], the Washington Post , Jun 28, 2006, [33]. and 143 more press references about the group. Being old and ornery does not make a group inherently non-notable. Edison (talk) 23:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable organization (badly named article, too). The mentions are not the kind of substantial coverage necessary to make a group notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move and Redirect to Granny Peace Brigade. Oddly, that was recently deleted, but this organization has received national media attention.--Samuel J. Howard (talk) 02:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as Granny Peace Brigade. The majority of the articles found by Edison's Google News search are about the Granny Peace Brigade, not just passing mentions. I can't see how they can be called "not the kind of substantial coverage necessary to make a group notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 14:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Edison and Bridger, various news sources. We66er (talk) 05:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 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) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Latas[edit]

Failed local politician, never elected to office fails WP:POLITICIAN. Military experience fails WP:BIO as I understand it. His service medals aren't significant enough to satisfy Notability requirement (i.e. Meritorious Service Medals are lower than even a purple heart). Toddst1 (talk) 18:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I strongly suspect that this article is an old case of conflict of interest. The creator of the article has a suspicious username and just came back to create the speedily deleted Salette latas. In any case, the subject of this article doesn't meet notability criteria, as the nominator has pointed out. Agree fully. Maedin\^talk 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per conflict of interest, of which this is clearly an example. Agree with previous voters entirely. Artifactblue (talk) 01:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I have always argued that serious candidates for U.S. Senate or Congress who get half or more of the winner's vote should be considered notable. This guy, however, finished third in the primary with only six percent, when the top two got a combined 85%. Kestenbaum (talk) 16:30, 24 September 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) 00:03, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of California, Santa Barbara Coral Tree Cafe[edit]

This is a one sentence article about a non-notable place at UCSB. Inknoise (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Should be a trivia item in Coral tree, if that. Borock (talk) 18:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all, very trivial. Tempodivalse (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to University of California, Santa Barbara with no mention in target. Pie is good ^{(Apple is the best)} 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Please let this not be a sign that every Starbucks or Denny's location needs a Wikipedia article. Sashaman (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:23, 24 September 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 as blatant and obvious misinformation, badly cribbed from here (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jenny apolo[edit]

Looks like a hoax to me. The article claims that she was a Playmate in 1984 which would be an easy thing to verify if it were true. All the other claims seem dubious and the reference doesn't appear to exist. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Absolutely no evidence anyone surnamed "Apolo" has ever been a Playmate. Tracy Vaccaro was October 1983's playmate. That issue had a generic "redheads" pictorial, it's conceivable she was in that pictorial, but that isn't what the article is claiming. The reference to the sister being a supposed cybergirl for Playboy also doesn't hold water - you can't be a "of the month" girl in the same month you are "of the week". Also, the page creater has this single edit to his history. Smells of hoax/prank/personal attack? MadScot (talk) 18:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. Article also says that she appeared at WrestleMania 2 in 1984, but that event occurred in 1986 (and I have no idea who Shawn Clifford is supposed to be, but he's not mentioned in the WrestleMania 2 article, either). Deor (talk) 18:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lies covered in lies with a light lie sauce for dipping. No Playmate exists by that name (and as MadScot pointed out, there's several other inconsistencies with the claims of this article), the Wrestlemania she allegedly appeared at took place two years later, no wrestler by the name of Shawn Clifford exists, no comedy by the name "The Brewster of New York" exists. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 19:05, 21 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez[edit]

Director of a Museum in Central America. The article attempts to assert notability using sources, however, the sources fail WP:N - they are not about the man himself, rather, they mention him in passing. There is also a worrying assertation made on the talk page that the article was written by his wife. The article creator has been making several dozen articles about low-ranking members of the Mormon church, nearly all of whcih have been AFDed or speedied. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the above. I believe this particular article was created to add legitimacy to sources used at Archaeology and the Book of Mormon - in reality, this person is not notable. --Descartes1979 (talk) 20:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The New York Sun article establishes notability. The references to Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez are more than "in passing". -- Eastmain (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The New York Sun article is about the opening of a sealed cave under a mexican pyramid. Very weak claim to notability to satisfy WP:N. Equendil Talk 22:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on basis of ref's supplied which don't seem to actually mention subject, except in passing as in charge of the dig, the excavation might be notable but there are no grounds to think he is. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Equendil and Hunting dog. VG ☎ 00:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable per above comments. He's also not particularly notable within the LDS Church, where you'd think he would be, if not in the archaeological community. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:24, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete Google scholar turns up three apparent hits (written by AS González, A Sarabia González & S González) but no citations. No evidence of scholarly impact sufficient to pass WP:PROF. Pete.Hurd (talk) 01:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google scholar search for "Alejandro Sarabia" turns up only two of the three items found using "Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez" and nothing that is in addition to that found using "Alejandro Sarabia Gonzalez". Pete.Hurd (talk) 06:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's important to remember how Spanish surnames work, so searching on "Alejandro Sarabia" is necessary also. One gets a little more at gscholar and gbooks with "alejandro sarabia", but still not really enough for WP:PROF; but there are 50 gnews hits for teotihuacan "alejandro sarabia" ; 74 articles in total; this may suffice, don't have the time now to scrutinize them, or the 900 google hits for that search.John Z (talk) 05:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pete Hurd and the other comments above. --Crusio (talk) 08:25, 24 September 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 Saves the Day. Cirt (talk) 00:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Sessions Volume Three[edit]

Self released album only available on tour. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC; album has not charted per allmusic and no professional reviews found. Prod was contested on the grounds that albums by notable artists are notable, however WP:MUSIC only says that such albums may be notable, not that they are automatically notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saves the Day. Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saves the Day as a plausible search term. Fails notability for lacking "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" per WP:MUSIC#Albums. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 00:33, 22 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suril Shah[edit]

Six years ago, this chap got some Indian press coverage for being the youngest to pass some computing exams. But there's no sources showing any significance beyond those reports, and most of the remainder of this CV article is unverified. Troikoalogo (talk) 08:46, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Suril is quite renown in India and has received considerable media coverage in newspapers and TV News Channels. Many articles have been published about him, especially in his native state. For instance, Gujarat Samachar. One of the reasons for deletion, is cited that the news were six years ago, but last year itself, Suril cleared SAP "Technology Consultant" certification, which is of very high repute in the IT industry - Making it big at a Young Age. The certifications which Suril has achieved are considered very valuable in the IT industry, and generally attempted after graduation and work experience, which he did at quite young age. All his claims have been affirmed by the companies whose certifications he took. Hence it is a notable accomplishment. As for the remainder of the page, all the facts can be cited as local media had published reports of his felicitation functions held by the institutions, but maybe not available on the internet, but can be uploaded.

--Whizsurfer (talk) 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Extremely Weak Keep and Stub,~~ may actually do the barely notable thing but, the article is way too much of a C.V. the entire article should be stubbified and written in a properly neutral tone. Each of the "certifications" don't need to be listed. Factually state who he is, what he is notable for, and reference accordingly. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've modified the article to the best of my knowledge and citability , and tried to make it 'non-CV' like and maintain neutrality. As for the listing of certifications, I believe as they are records, they should be listed with proper name and age. However, I welcome experienced Wiki editors to help improve this page and adhere to the Wikipedia rules.Whizsurfer (talk) 13:52, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I've changed my mind. The need for a complete overhaul on the article makes me think that it would be better to delete what currently exists and start over. AfD is not cleanup. I recommend reading the notability, verifiability, reliable sources, and Manual of Style as well as the help pages about creating articles. After that create the article in a userspace sandbox and ask a couple of admins to preview it before moving it to article space. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:05, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we don't need to completely overhaul the article, but the current form does seem to have enough information and citations. The only argument is whether we should keep the tabular form of 'certifications'.Whizsurfer (talk) 14:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no that isn't the only argument. Read the stuff I've pointed you to above and you'll begin to grasp some of the problems. His working really hard and or achieving great things, etc and the way it is presented in the article is peacock and/or weaselly and shouldn't be there. It needs grammer and tone reworking. Requires a proper references section with inline citations. I'm not going to get into detail here. The article talkpage maybe but, like I said it needs a lot of work and AfD is not cleanup. Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, there is proper references section and neutral point of view. I understand that AfD is not for cleanup, but was just drawing inspiration from Bonny Hicks AfD nomination :-). I hope now there is proper usage of grammar and neutrality is maintained by mentioning things factually. Still if something seems "weaselly" in there, it would be better if that could be point that out :-). I dont think we need to start from scratch for this article. Whizsurfer (talk) 16:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, as whiz kids attempting computer online exams has become a recent trend, this article would serve as good information for who holds up records for some of the renown online exams, and being a trend-setter. Whizsurfer (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 20:13, 13 September 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) 00:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Jasynnash2. He may or may not meet WP:BIO, but this article is pretty much unsalvageable. Stifle (talk) 23:58, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do understand, the nominated version seems to be written from a fan's point of view. I have made revisions after that, and the current form should satisfy WP:NPOV. As for notability concerns, this seems to be one of the first articles, in the context, so not sure whether WP:BIO would provide 100% reasons, whether to include/exclude such articles, but I am fully convinced that it belongs here :-) It doesn't seem to be a complete misfit here, so my efforts are to improve upon current version, as it might require minimal changes, rather than starting all over again. Whizsurfer (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I read a few pages under the Category:1992 births, and probably Suril Shah's notability is comparable with many of the persons under the category. --Bhadani (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ff m 17:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Various newspapers keep writing about him - smells like notability to me. Clarityfiend (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep references show he meets the notability guidelines. RMHED (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Those certifications aren't rocket science, but he is notable for passing them at such a young age, as evidenced by repeated coverage in the media. VG ☎ 00:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per coverage. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 22:38, 24 September 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 Save the Day. Cirt (talk) 00:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bug Sessions Volume One[edit]

Self released album only available on tour. No claim in article of meeting WP:MUSIC; album has not charted per allmusic and no professional reviews found. Prod was contested on the grounds that albums by notable artists are notable, however WP:MUSIC only says that such albums may be notable, not that they are automatically notable. Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Saves the Day. Corvus cornix_talk 00:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Saves the Day as a plausible search term. Fails notability for lacking "significant independent coverage in reliable sources" per WP:MUSIC#Albums.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Frelinghuysen[edit]

Tagged for speedy deletion and contested. There is a clear assertion of notability and this is not a WP:CSD#A7 candidate. Other issues should be considered. Neutral nomination. Chick Bowen 17:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of reliable sources. The three sources cited in the article are from the artist's profiles in the art organizations that she has exhibited her work. These art organizations do not appear to be that notable. A Google News Archive search returns few results and a Google search only returns results from unreliable sources. The only semi-reliable article I could find about this individual is from findarticles.com in which this person is given a trivial mention at the bottom of the article. This artist completely fails WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would disagree and say that most of the art organizations like Cranbrook Art Museum (http://www.cranbrookart.edu/museum//), Headlands Center for the Arts (http://www.headlands.org/), and Anderson Ranch Arts Center(http://www.andersonranch.org/workshops/)are highly notable. Sulven (talk) 18:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: You're right. Those three art organizations are fairly notable but their notability isn't enough to establish the notability of this artist. If you can find a couple reliable sources to establish this artist's notability (from newspapers such as The New York Times or Washington Post), I'm willing to reconsider my vote. Cunard (talk) 18:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response:I think there's enough credibility in Scultpure Space [[34]] profile that links her up to her other exhibitions and displays, among them these three sources. I can't read the wikipedia notability criteria in a way that makes this article "not worthy" of an encyclopedic article as she fulfills several of them cited above, and so is a reliable source linking the artist to the other highly regarded sources. I can't find anything in the NY Times of Washington Post, but neither do I think that is necessary as there are other sources, not as publicly known, but still so in the world of art. She is also a member of a family that actually has its own wikipedia category in which I don't think she can really be subject to exclusion from as it is of public interest, which I think is another reason why she is relevant for a wikipedia article. Sulven (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response: The link you provided is not a reliable source. It is from one of the sites that she is affiliated with. Third-party sources will provide verifiability and notability for her. Furthermore, even though her family has a category, notability is not inherited. Her family members might be notable, but "the fact that she has famous relatives is not, in and of itself, sufficient to justify an independent article." I've tried to find reliable sources for this artist but couldn't find any. I just don't see how she passes WP:BIO. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Cunard. Insufficient coverage by independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:CREATIVE. No reviews of her work in the newsmedia that I could find, nothing in googlenews[35]. Nsk92 (talk) 23:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response Too bad as they say. No one except Cunard said notability is inherited, I just find it relevant and interesting within the context of being an actual artist on your own merit, and being from a known artist family, there is a major difference which I think is a point that wasn't considered here. It's kind of a shame that administrators would narrow criteria for articles to more than what seems within the limits of them (even if they seem to have good enough reason. The article did no harm, was about an actual professional artist who made her living out of art for over two years, is relevant in her field, which is rather narrow (but no less important) and thus not picked up easily by the big media. It wasn't self-promoting or made by a friend, or by some promoter/producer/handler etc, but someone who admire the art. It seems strange in an encyclopedia of this magnitude that there wouldn't be any room for this?

Sulven (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think anyone significantly disagrees with Sulven's points, but none of these points satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Sashaman (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:26, 24 September 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. recreated material Xy7 (talk) 23:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart M. Pepper[edit]

I'm not really sure what the deal is with this article. An article about the same person was deleted today as a result of a deletion discussion; shortly after that AfD began, this article was created and quickly tagged with an AfD notice linking to that AfD, though as near as I can tell, no mention of this article was ever made in that discussion. I can't tell whether this article, in its current form, is a duplicate of the deleted one, but if the person has been judged to be nonnotable, this article should probably be deleted as well. Deor (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per this log. The admin who closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stuart pepper deleted the redirect Stuart pepper but neglected to delete Stuart M. Pepper, which was where the article was moved to. I've tagged the article for speedy deletion. Cunard (talk) 17:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, sorry; I overlooked the move or I would have used db-afd myself. Deor (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note This article was created when the original article "Stuart pepper" was renamed to "Stuart M. Pepper" in order to correctly reflect the perosn's name.Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Though this person qualifies as notable through WP:Athlete, having played in a professional sports team for many years, he did not have sufficient notability as a filmmaker to convince editors at an AfD to look past his filmolgy to the letter of WP:Athlete and his sports background. I improved the article but it did not survive the original AfD. Its "ghost" may as well be deleted too. Why not? Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I still don't agree with that. He passes WP:ATHLETE so I really don't see why it was deleted. Schuym1 (talk) 20:59, 21 September 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 List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. Cirt (talk) 00:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barney's Imagination Island[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources that show this television film's notability on the Movie Review Query Engine, the first 11 pages of a Google search, and Rotten Tomatoes. Schuym1 (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of Barney & Friends episodes and videos. This special does not appear to have any notability whatsoever. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 17:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NF.--MrFish^{Go Fish} 05:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:27, 24 September 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 - by consensus. --VS ^talk 08:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

African American contemporary issues[edit]

Why does this article exist? There's no article on Asian-American contemporary issues or Hispanic American contemporary issues. Also, I think people already know what the issues are already. There's no reason for this article to exist. Fclass (talk) 16:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any problem with an article about the things African Americans find important issues, not that it would be an easy article to write or take care of. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NPOV, large number of unreferenced (and even if they were, contentious) assertions. Cannot see how this could ever be NPOV and encyclopedic. MadScot (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the articles African American, African American history, African American culture etc. are suitable places for discussing contemporary Africa American issues. In fact, these articles already discuss some of these contemporary issues, in a much neutral and balanced way IMO. That implies that I would delete this article, and not merge the content due to the NPOV issues. Голубое сало/Blue Salo (talk) 20:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article about "issues" is unnecessary and a duplicate. We don't have articles on Canada issues, for example, because the article Canada, if properly written, must cover issues related to Canada. So an article just about issues is inherently a duplicate. --Rividian (talk) 22:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Careful with we don't have an article on .... Jjamison (talk) 00:39, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Careful with kneejerk reactions... I explained why an article on that topic would be a bad idea. Do you have any problem with my logic, or did you just detect some keywords in my comment and feel the need to make a trite link? --Rividian (talk) 17:29, 23 September 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 Cindery Island. Article history deleted. It appears this is the first time there was a deletion discussion about this article, so other issues could be addressed if they crop up again after this. Cirt (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cindery[edit]

User continues to re-create non-notable micronation article over redirect. ninety:one 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The article about the micronation is obviously not notable. Cindery should redirect to Cindery Island, the redirect should be protected, and Lamprea should be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Neelix (talk) 16:38, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Don't talk about the author, guys. Tell us why the article doesn't meet the guidelines. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonnotable, unreferenced, "made-up-in-school-one-day" borderline nonsense. The author's intentions aside, which are at least questionable, this simply does not pass muster. Delete and redirect back to the island. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article does not establish notability and reads like an advertisement. VG ☎ 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:28, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFT. It seems to me that several of the List of micronations could be nominated for deletion too, although that's not a reason for keeping this one (see WP:OTHERSTUFF). Stephen Turner (Talk) 08:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt -- These micronations are a variety of vanity: content without substance. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 24 September 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) 00:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galilean Electrodynamics[edit]

This article is about a journal which is not indexed by the major scientific indexes, is essentially an outfit for self-promotion and advertising against-the-mainstream papers that have failed peer-review at other journals. While this in-and-of-itself is not a criteria for deletion, the self-promotional references are all we have going for this subject. There are absolutely zero independent, third-party sources who have commented on this journal which makes any article we would even attempt to write about this journal impossible to reliably source. Note that articles published in this journal are routinely rejected as reliable sources for nearly every other article in this encyclopedia.

See the inclusion criteria of WP:FRINGE for why this article should be deleted, which mentions as a requirement that the subject should be: "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory." Note that there are notable fringe journals like the Journal of Scientific Exploration which satisfy this criteria and are therefore encyclopedic. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, primarily notability concerns. Equendil Talk 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems to have been around for a while, with contributions by qualified authors. I see no evidence of self-promotion, and no evidence that it publishes papers that have failed peer review. The journal seems to have been mentioned in some 3rd party resources, such as [36][37][38], and the article does not appear to provide misleading positive information. --John294 (talk) 22:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First one doesn't mention the journal, second and third are conference proceedings and, as such, are not reliable sources. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we were using sources to claim Einstein had been disproved by an article in Galilean Electrodynamics, then you would be quite correct. However, we are using the sources to verify Galilean Electrodynamics' notability (unless you are suggesting that the sources are unreliable and meant to quote a different magazine?) Galilean Electrodynamics is mentioned in many 3rd party sources, not just proceedings, including (1) The American Spectator (2) Topological Foundations of Electromagnetism (3) Against the Tide, and is mentioned in other refereed journals such as (1) American Journal of Physics (2) Journal of Theoretics (3) Solitons and Fractals (3) International Journal of Nuclear Energy Science and Technology, and others. This does not show that magazine is any good, but others have found it notable to cite. --John294 (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3rd party sources: (1)Mentioned in a letter to the editor (does not establish notability since it is essentially self-promotion). (2)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject (3)Mentioned in a list of "alternative journals": not enough information to establish the journal itself as a subject or to source anything other than it being a fringe journal.

Journal sources: (1)Single citation to an article, does not address the journal itself as a subject, (2)Journal of Theoretics is itself a self-published, unindexed fringe journal, (3)Self-citation, (4) Denied access: not sure why.

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deleteper nomination. No evidence it satisfies WP:N. (If the articles in the journal are off-base, mainstream scientists should be able to demonstrate the fact. Disagreeing with modern science does not automatically create notability.)Edison (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, Equendil and Edison. VG ☎ 00:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete almost no library holdings in WorldCat--fewer than 10. DGG (talk) 01:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' notability not sufficiently established. Just because you publish a periodical, does not mean it gets a Wikipedia entry, unless the periodical is particularly well-known, e.g. for its content, or the people who have published in it, or controversies, etc. This publication fails on all those criteria and more. --SJK (talk) 07:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:29, 24 September 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. NAC. Schuym1 (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This Week in Unnecessary Censorship[edit]

User contested prod. Non-notable segment. Schuym1 (talk) 15:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jimmy Kimmel Live!. As a real segment of the show it's a plausible search/incoming link term. --Rividian (talk) 16:22, 21 September 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. speedy as blatant copyvio. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dale A. Kunkel[edit]

staff, not notable in and of himself, at least not as stated in bio Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 15:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I would have thought that a senior member of a foundation with a 5 billion endowment would have gotten significant coverage, but as far as I can tell he has not. - Icewedge (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if you look at the staff listing he's one of about 50 people. Their personnel naming is convoluted in the extreme, but he seems to be third tier. I don't think that would merit inclusion. MadScot (talk) 18:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment I have a feeling that Category:American money managers is filled with such entries. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 18:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 24 September 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) 00:13, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fernando Mastrangelo[edit]

Fails WP:CREATIVE, WP:BIO, WP:N, lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. The article itself only asserts notability by mentioning galleries he was shown in, and a google news search lists only 4 name drops which aren't enough to establish notability.
Original author Mastrangelo222 (talk · contribs) possibly has a WP:Conflict of interest.Amalthea^Talk 15:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. VG ☎ 00:31, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 00:30, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 02:38, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability via significant coverage in reliable sources. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:17, 25 September 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. --VS ^talk 08:53, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mickey Mouse cup[edit]

Unencyclopaedic, POV-laden nonsense. The references given are to opinion pieces, or are referring to the opinions of fans who are obviously biased one way or another depending on the circumstances. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 15:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think it's okay to have an article about a common expression used in the sport. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It could do with some cleaning up I think, but it seems a commonly used term in English football. I also deleted the scurrilous comment added by an IP about Scottish football. MadScot (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I'm leaning towards a delete with a redirect to Pejorative use of Mickey's name. I don't think there is enough new information here to warrant a seperate entry, such as there is for Mickey Mouse degrees. The only references I can find on google (and also the only relevant reference in the article itself) comes from football related blog entries (i.e. opinion pieces) so to me doesn't meet the requirements for significant coverage in unbiased third party sources--Stabbington (talk) 19:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here's a BBC News item from 1999, where David Mellor is quoted as using the term.(Last para)MadScot (talk) 19:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And a columnist in the Telegraph doing the sameMadScot (talk) 20:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Widely used term. Robotforaday (talk) 16:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Mickey Mouse is a widely used term to describe something of little importance. If this article is kept than pages like "Mickey mouse job" or "Mickey mouse money" would be created and have a basis to be kept. Hubschrauber729 (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mickey Mouse#Pejorative use of Mickey's name. The term "Mickey Mouse" is applied in such a manner to many things. -- Whpq (talk) 16:28, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mickey Mouse#Pejorative use of Mickey's name - per correct usage. --Angelo (talk) 07:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Hubschrauber729. Redirecting and adding to the list mentioned above is fine too, although adding every possible Mickey Mouse term to that list is not what we need either. --Amalthea^Talk 01:11, 26 September 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 02:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dibs[edit]

Neologism of an unnotable informal term. The whole thing is a load of original research as there are no in-text citations or anything to verify the information of the article. See also: WP:NEO. Tavix (talk) 20:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject of the article is an international social custon of claiming posession of a common resource, and is not limited to one neologism. The word "dibs" for this practice in English has references back to the mid 19th century. See "The new Partridge dictionary of slang and unconventional English [39]". Its origins are discussed in "Verbatim: From the Bawdy to the Sublime (2001)" [40] and in numerous other scholarly references at Google book search.Deletion of an article is not necessary if sources exist to improve it. Edison (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Many more sources need to be found however. Although everyone knows what this is the article should be cited with reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 16:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a lot more than a dicdef and per above, sources can be found. Squidfryerchef (talk) 17:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's a dictionary definition until proven otherwise... usage guide and etymology is for a dictionary, trivia and example farms are not encyclopedic. That's all that's been shown to exist... we shouldn't keep articles on the wishful thinking that someone might prove it's encyclopedic someday. We would have to keep absolutely any article under that logic. --Rividian (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No, we would only keep article which have substantial coverage in multiple independent and reliable sources, thus satisfying WP:N, as this one does. Edison (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Most nouns and slang terms in the english language have "coverage", as in a lot of uses, but it consists of nothing more than examples and definitions. Not everything is fit for an encyclopedia article, even if we're sure we've heard of it a lot. --Rividian (talk) 00:46, 22 September 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. The discussion about making this a redirect can continue on the article's talk page (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cephalic[edit]

Soft redirect to wikt:cephalic. It's neither an article nor a disambiguation page. Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 14:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's more than just a dictionary definition. Mind, it's not likely to get much longer, but we don't delete stuff for being a stub. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 19:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Intro is dicdef, one line related to "Cephalon", the rest is disambiguation material. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as Cephalon (and rename the company) and expand the subject. 70.51.11.159 (talk) 05:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that Cephalon should be about Trilobite#Cephalon or maybe a disambiguation page, I still thinks "Cephalic" should end up as a soft-redirect to Wiktionary. – Leo Laursen – ✍ ⌘ 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Leolaursen and have Cephalic redirect there. Tavix (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: AFD is for deletion discussions. Schuym1 (talk) 16:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Seems to be a valid term and well sourced. At worst a merge with Cephalic_disorders --Banime (talk) 16:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment it's an adjective, shouldn't the "noun" form be used as an article title? 70.55.203.112 (talk) 05:26, 22 September 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) 00:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Trebilcook[edit]

An enormous number of words--quite obviously written by the subject himself and name-dropping like mad--but essentially unsubstantiated: the two references added since the 'prod' tag was originally added are not only minor, the second doesn't even support the claim made. Even assuming the claims made are true, once the Hollywood name-dropping and plot summaries are stripped away, you have someone who doesn't come near to rating a biographical article. CalendarWatcher (talk) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Might rate an article some day, but I see lots of things proposed or pending or hoped for or to be released in the future. It is hard to be sure how certain the prognostications are. Edison (talk) 15:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable secondary sources --Banime (talk) 16:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'd like to correct a couple of things in the nomination. Firstly this is by no means "quite obviously written by the subject himself" - to say that breaches our policy of assuming good faith. Also the second reference was not "added since the 'prod' tag was originally added" - it was already in the article. It is there to verify that the listed actors are in the film. That the subject is scriptwriter and producer is confirmed by http://www-dot-aceshowbiz-dot-com/news/view/00017982.html but I couldn't add that to the article because that site is blacklisted. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Despite the air of bad faith around this nomination I must agree that the subject appears not to be notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing is yet asserted which is likely to be considered notable. But first at the very minimum a script must be not just drafted but accepted, and a film released. DGG (talk) 02:28, 22 September 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. Cirt (talk) 00:17, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military incompetence[edit]

~~Appears to be pushing a book under the thin veneer of general, objective statements.~~ (Fixed by Shimgray. ~ Jafet 14:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)) Does not cite third-party references or sources. Weaselling throughout. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 13:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not so much an encyclopedia article as it is a book review. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I should have checked earlier revisions before condemning this article. Keep per Shimgray and the comments below now. Sjakkalle (Check!) 06:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How strange - someone wiped the existing article and replaced it with the review. I've reinstated the old article, which was unreferenced (mainly because I was doing it from memory without either book handy) but is at least more general and, I hope, a lot more informative... Shimgray | talk | 14:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This is, incidentally, the second time I've had to save this article [41]. I should keep a closer eye on it... Shimgray | talk | 14:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe anyone searching for this topic would find what they were looking for in List_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders#Military. --Banime (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In a redlink? ;-) In all seriousness, the article as it stands isn't much, but it is a valid topic; Dixon's book is odd, but it is indicative that there's secondary literature dealing with this as a subject. A catalogue of events is really not very useful (and, as this article used to be, a fleapit of edit-warring); an article on the concept can, hopefully, explain why the concept of specifically military incompetence is worth discussing beyond the normal ideas of organisational ineffectiveness. It certainly needs expanding - I'll put it on the to-do list - but we can certainly give the reader more than a list of mistakes with no context. Shimgray | talk | 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Whoops, I meant this link here: List_of_incidents_famously_considered_great_blunders#Military I edited it in the post above as well. --Banime (talk) 16:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - And to address your comment, perhaps try to improve the article as much as you can and add citations and I can reconsider my position before the AfD is up. --Banime (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - An article can do this. An article can do that. This article has, unfortunately, been on the 'pedia for a few years now and nothing much has been made of it. I would welcome real improvements to the article, as would many other editors, but I would not expect any forthcoming. ~ Jafet • business • pleasure • voicemail 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as reliable sources exist: a whole book in fact (which I for one found extremely interesting). An explanation of the causes is hardly the same thing as a list of the effects. Richard Pinch (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is imcompetence everywhere, not just the military. The issues discussed in this article would be better in some larger article dealing with military decision making. Northwestgnome (talk) 17:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is very notable and there are hundreds of sources. Dixon's work is excellent and so is a good start point for the article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is definitely notable. The fact that the article only covers a minute amount of the existing bibliography is no reason to delete it. Also, I agree with Richard Pinch that merely having a list of military blunders (in another article) is not the same as having a fully fleshed article. VG ☎ 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Military incompetence is a subject studied by the militaries, and is unlike many other fields of organisational failure because of the very many unique factors involved. The fact that it has a book which is similarly named is not really an issue, although it was definitely wrong to replace the article with a book review. A list of "blunders" is not same as professional and organisational incompetence. One can blunder into an ambush, but one does not blunder into a year's long campaign that can't be won. --mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 01:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This topic is the subject of many books, articles, etc. Dixon's book is regarded as a classic and often appears on the reading lists issued by militaries and appears to have inspired many similar works. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:51, 22 September 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. While I personally don't agree with the outcome, there's no obvious consensus here. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kaveh Farrokh[edit]

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

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

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

Biographical article of a very minor Canadian academic. He is a linguist with an amateur sideline in Iranian history (though no qualifications in that field). He has an extremely short bibliography. To date he has published two books on ancient Iranian military history through Osprey Publishing, a British popular (non-academic) imprint founded as a spin-off of a tea company's trading card promotion. His only other catalogued works that I've found appear to be his post-graduate and PhD theses. I've not found any citations of his works by any other academic sources and very few reviews of them (and some of those are scathing - see Jona Lendering here). Farrokh doesn't hold any significant posts or chairs - according to our article, he is a casual teacher at the University of British Columbia's Continuing Studies Division which "serves the adult education needs of lifelong learners in Vancouver and beyond".[42] He appears to have had no significant impact in higher education, outside academia or in his scholarly discipline. He does have a fair number of Google hits, but a lot of these apparently result from self-publishing (and others promoting) academically dubious Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history - obviously these cannot be considered reliable sources. In short, he meets absolutely none of the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (academics).

Please note that if you want to argue to keep the article:

The criteria for academic notability are set out in Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria (see points 1 to 9).
Google hits are not a notability criterion (see Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Google test).
Personal anecdotes are not evidence. You need to cite reliable, verifiable sources.

-- ChrisO (talk) 13:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. —ChrisO (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Kaveh Farrokh is a notable published author [43], a member of Stanford University's WAIS (World Association of International Studies)[44], and an expert on Iranian history [45]. According to Richard N. Frye, who is the most renowned scholar of Iranian history, "Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has given us the Persian side of the picture as opposed to the Greek and Roman viewpoint which has long dominated our understanding of these wars. It is refreshing to see the other perspective, and Dr. Farrokh sheds light on many Persian institutions in this history, such as the Sassanian elite cavalry, the "Savaran". ". --CreazySuit (talk) 14:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WAIS is just a society (see here) and I am not sure that membership means anything special. It certainly does not indicate that Farrokh is in any way affiliated with Stanford. --Crusio (talk) 15:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's an academic society, I didn't say it was special. The main point was that Kaveh Farrokh is a notable published author, has was alas a historical adviser to History Channel on a multi-million dollar project in 2006.--CreazySuit (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You included it among your arguments to justify your "strong keep" !vote, suggestong that it was something special. Having said this, I didn't say you claimed this was anything special, I just said that it is nothing special.... The fact that he is a published author does not really have much weight either. All academics publish, but they are only notable if their publications are noted. This has not been shown yet. As for the History Channel connection, according to the source mentioned in the article, he was "interviewed", but nothing indicates how long, perhaps it was just a tidbit of a few seconds, perhaps it was 3 hours, we don't know. The source is not independent, it is the website of his publisher. Nowhere do I see the claim that he was a "historical adviser" to the History Channel. --Crusio (talk) 15:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CommentThe comment by Frye is from the introduction of the book. Another historian (Jona Lendering) calls it a dangerous book for Iranology says "it contains hundreds of errors and even quotes political propaganda" and "the manuscript ought to have been returned to the writer". Reading the talk page on Frye, I think I understand why he wrote the introduction and says what he does. We have a definite shortage of academic reviews for this author, and an overdependence in the article on this source which unless something very different occurred he submitted himself (I've edited the article, before it read almost straight from this web page [46] Doug Weller (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jona Lendering is not a historian, he's just a blogger who works as an archivist in real life. Comparing Jona Lendering's opinion to that of Ruchard Frye (a fellow at Harvard, and the most renowned Iranologist ), is laughable. As per Kaveh's role in History Channel's Engineering an Empire, see [47]. --CreazySuit (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to TV.com. However, that doesn't seem to be a reliable source, since everybody can edit it. Unless something significant turns up, I am starting to lean to delete. --Crusio (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CreazySuit, maybe you could try finding out what a person's qualifications are before dismissing them? Lendering "read history at Leiden University (where he graduated in 1993), specialized in Mediterranean culture at the Amsterdam Free University (until 1996), and worked at excavations in Holland and Greece. After teaching methodology and theory at the Free University, he worked for some time as an archivist for the Dutch government. He founded a school for history teaching." Sounds very much like a historian to me. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Our article on Jona Lendering has him as an author of several books, including on Dutch history, which I'd say makes him as much of a historian as Farrokh. And it is ironic that CreazySuit is threatening me with a BLP violation warning while making comments like this about Lendering - 'just a blogger' is definitely a slur on him, see his article (and my talk page for details of CreazySuit's warning). Doug Weller (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The thing that Jona Lendering commented on Farokh shows that Farrokh is notable. It shows that Farrokh is "worthy of notice" or unusual enough to deserve Jona Lindering attention to comment on him."--Larno (talk) 16:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you disagree with CreazySuit. Would you agree to put his review in the article? It's not published you know, although a lot of articles do quote his website.Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mix issues. I mean Farrokh notable enough that deserves attention of different people. I am commenting on Farrokh and not Lindering--Larno (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If TV.com is not good enough for you, get a copy of History Channel's Engineering an Empire: The Persians, or look it up on a video streaming website, Farokh's name is in the credits. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Seems to be an established author and has a decent amount of reviews available from secondary sources. Expand the article to help improve it before deleting. Changed below --Banime (talk) 16:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment What reviews are you referring to? There's the introduction to the book by Frye, which isn't a review. There is supposed to be a review on the web here [48] but I've tried for several days and the site isn't available - they've only paid for 56mb a day it seems, which is basically nothing, so it isn't an impressive website and may be dead. I've found the review via Google [49] but look, the name of the website is "Kavad.com: Official Website of Dr. Kaveh Farrokh". So, can we use a review published on the author's website to show notability? Almost the opposite, I'd say. Doug Weller (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Delete Changed to Delete after seeing the review in google turn out to be from his website. Thanks for the tip Doug Weller. --Banime (talk) 16:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. "worthy of notice", 50,000 Google hits, he deserves attention of so many people including scholars such as Frye and writer such as Jona Lindering who commented pro or against him. Well-known in Iran and in Iranian media —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larno Man (talk • contribs) 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Comment So many people commented here from both sides. It shows notability of this person. He draws the attention of many people to himself. It seems that the real reason for this AFD is that fans of certain POV want to get rid of their opponent in Wikipedia.--Larno (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If not even a highly motivated editor like CreazySuit can come up with evidence of notability, that most probably means there just is none. --Crusio (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is a notable author and I have heard him on BBC, RFE, VOA... Nokhodi (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"I've heard of him" is not a valid argument here, along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT. VG ☎ 11:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Frye's writing a foreword for a book is a strong endorsement of its content. His article makes it clear that he is a leading scholar in his field. He would not have written a foreword, if he had not thought the book worthwhile. Kaveh Farrokh appears to describe himself as an "independent historical scholar". I see little harm in this article and do not see why it should not be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the "keep" voters above could explain how any of the criteria in WP:PROF are met? Google hits are worthless, btw. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Here is another acknowledgment of Kaveh Farokh's notability by historians Antony Karasulas, Angus Mcbride, Martin Windro [50] and 54 further results for Kaveh Farrokh on Google Scholar[51]. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are almost entirely false positives - patent applications and engineering papers dating back to 1977 filed by a Farrokh Kaveh of Mountain View, CA. I hardly think our Kaveh Farrokh was writing papers like "Dynamic Behavior of Elastomeric Diaphragms" at Ohio State University at the age of 15. -- ChrisO (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has been interviewed many times on BBC and VOA Persian services. Specially with regards to Achaemenid, Parthian and Sassanid history. That should be enough to claim notability. Also book is available at google books [52] and it is informative to know more about the author. Also book review of Dr. David Khoupenia can be found here [53] --Nepaheshgar 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment The problem with that review is that it can only be found on the web. That it doesn't seem to have been actually published is I think a problem in that the lack of published reviews works against establishing notability. Doug Weller (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment we don't know if it is published in a journal or not although they are mentioned together here: [54]. Richard Frye is sufficient to establish notability. Either way, he has been brought to BBC and VOA Persian service as an expert opinion on ancient Iranian history and also English program "Engineering an empire"[55] which I saw on the learning channel. I am not going to go back and forth on this, but I believe that is sufficient.--Nepaheshgar 18:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Being a frequent interviewee isn't in any way a sign of notability. We certainly don't have articles on everyone who's ever appeared on television or radio. I'm afraid your TV.com source is unusable, as it's a user-generated website (like Wikipedia) and can't be used as a reliable source.-- ChrisO (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In that TV show he was interviewed along with four other professors/researchers. Only two of them, Patrick_Hunt and Abbas_Alizadeh have bio's on Wikipedia, and those two are definitely more notable than Farrokh. So it's marginal argument for notability. VG ☎ 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not any random interview. It is an interview about subjects of ancient history where the scholar has been consulted by BBC and VOA on particular expert matters(ancient Iran). Also the t.v. program was in the history channel [56] and the scholar was consulted on expert matters. If the scholar has consulted BBC, VOA, history channel on expert opinions with regards to ancient Persia and his book has been endorsed by Richard Frye, has written two books and different monographs, then that should be enough for notability. So the comparison to an interview with a random person on t.v. who has no books, has not been consulted by programs for expert opinion and has not been endorsed by major scholars in the field is really not valid. --Nepaheshgar 18:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep There are enough sources to establish his importance. (His book also sounds interesting and the history of Persia/Iran is much misunderstood in the West.) Northwestgnome (talk) 18:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ; Voice of America, as the official U.S. Government Broadcasting Board, introduce Dr Farrokh as Historian / Archeologist Dr. Kaveh Farrokh and asked about his opinion about the some especial historic aspects of the ancient Persian history : VOA official site. If he was not notable enough , then why should a US governmental press ask him as specialist ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Archaeologist? This is getting ridiculous. He isn't an archaeologist. Doug Weller (talk) 19:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - comment Alborz speaks English as a fourth language and so he might have made a mistake. My darn computer right now does not open that file. I believe he has translated Baastaanshenaas (knower of ancient history) as Archeologist. Else I have heared the inerview in BBC mention him as Muwarrikh (semitic work actually from Arabic Tarikh) which in modern Persian means Historians. But Farrokh did to some actual field work and study in Kermanshah/Bistun with regards to clothing of ancient Iranians. --Nepaheshgar 19:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
    - Although my English may not be excellent , but any way , in the VOA site it is written :Roundtable hosts Historian / Archeologist Dr. Kaveh Farrokh from Vancouver to discuss Cyrus The Great: Reality or Myth? , am I understang it wrong ? Here : [57]--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your English is well enough then. :) But I think the site mis-translated since Baastaanshenaas is different than Kavoshgar. They probably put Muwarrikh as historian and Baastaanshenaas as Archeologist. Although Dr. Farrokh according to one review, worked many years in examinaning ancient clothing of Iranians and that is sufficient for Archaeology. Either way, VOA and BBC consulted Kaveh Farrokh on matters of ancient Iran and that is the important point.--Nepaheshgar 19:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

well , anyway , the field of Iranian [historical] study , seems to be not in the focus of extended scientific efforts , and that may explain why his books are not mentioned in many publications. Besides , his books are published recently and need more time to be mentioned .Anyway, as you said , it is sufficent for notablity .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Since when do we judge the credibility of sources and authors on WP? That's not our job. Especially when this particular author's books are found inside the libraries of some of the world's most renowned academic institutions? Since when do we have such authority to make judgements, and call this or that author "minor"? Please consider:
1. e.g. Harvard University catalog, University of Chicago library catalog, UCLA catalog. All 3 have renowned academic programs in Iranistics and Iranology.
2. I'm sorry, but if Stanford University academia is inviting him as a scholar, then the current attempt to discredit this author is not acceptable to me.
3. If he's being interviewed/mentioned on The History Channel, that's credible enough to be mentioned here.
4. If we were to apply this same criteria to all the other authors, half of all WP's sources would have to be dropped. Do you really think any of the writers of Time, Newsweek, BBC, NewYorker et al have the technical credibility to write what they write? I can give you 600 examples of cases where they clearly dont. And yet these sources are used left and right on WP.
5. You dont have to be an active faculty, and in your own field of research, to be considered credible. That's just an absurd demand.
6. Besides, exactly who is "major" here, and who's "minor", and under what criteria? Is Bernard Lewis a "major" author e.g.? Cuz if he is, I'd call him a liar, and wouldnt use him as a source. My point: It's not up to me and you to judge sources, so long as the sources are verifiable. Let us leave identifying and weighing the credibility of sources up to the reader. The serious reader isnt stupid; they can go look up Kaveh Farrokh, and decide for themselves how trustworthy he is. This is an encyclopedia, not the compendium of truths.--Zereshk (talk) 19:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. We're not discussing whether he is "credible". We're discussing whether he is sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article. The criteria are set out at WP:PROF#Criteria. None of your points above address any of those criteria. Could you try doing so, please? -- ChrisO (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, not exactly. You seem to be questioning his notability by basing your argument on his credibility. Your statement "I should add that he also appears to be promoting dubious Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history" is alluding to his credibility. Or at least you seem to be using his credibility to undermine his notability. Otherwise, his position on anything shouldnt matter one way or the other. Regardless, points, 1, 2, and 3 directly can be applied to notability as well. Cheers.--Zereshk (talk) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see where you're coming from. No, the point I was making (no doubt clumsily) is that he has a sideline in self-published polemical nationalist pseudohistorical pieces (this being an example), separately from his published works. This appears to have endeared him to some Iranians who share a similar point of view, hence you find his self-published pieces on a number of websites. This arguably doesn't have a bearing on his credibility (to us at least, though mainstream academics would probably feel differently) but it inflates the number of Google hits on his name. If it wasn't for his self-published items and his online fan club, we'd probably only see a few booksellers' websites in Google searches for him. His books appear to have received very few reviews and little attention, and nobody who's commented here so far has been able to find anyone citing his books in other publications. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- There are millions of books in a good university library. Many are by non-entities; we don't have or want an article on all of them. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment: Since when do we judge the credibility of sources and authors on WP?. All the time. That's what AfD is for, to determine if the sources meet the requirements at WP:RS. Corvus cornix_talk 22:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have been following the passionate discussion above. As far as I can see, no convincing arguments establishing notability have been advanced. As to academic libraries holding his works, according to WorldCat "Shadows in the desert : ancient Persia at war" is held by 151 US librairies, which is not bad, but not outstanding either. "Sassanian elite cavalry AD 224-642" is held by just 6 libraries, which is negligible. The above discussion and the sources added to the article all confirm that there is hardly any notability here. I'm afraid that most "keep" votes above are motivated by the theses that Farrokh is advancing, not by his notability. If anybody comes up with real sources verifying real notability, I will immediately change my vote, but at this point I am more and more convinced that my delete vote above is the correct way to go. --Crusio (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth mentioning that his publisher, Osprey Publishing, is a popular imprint rather than an academic publisher - they were founded as a spin-off from a British tea company's trading card scheme, originally focusing on military aircraft. Their books are often well-illustrated but their factual accuracy can be problematic. The many obvious mistakes in Shadows in the Desert certainly wouldn't have got past an academic editor. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WAIS is a chat list with an ideology, according to its own self-description. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, basically per nom as failing WP:BIO and WP:PROF. For WP:PROF there is no evidence of high citability of his work by other academics, very few academic reviews of his work, no academic awards or honors and his two books are not widely held by academic libraries. He is quoted a few times by newsmedia as a historian but certainly not enough to pass criterion 7 of WP:PROF; as item no 14 in the "Notes and Examples" section of WP:PROF says, "Criterion 7 may be satisfied, for example, if the person is frequently quoted in conventional media as an academic expert in a particular area. A small number of quotations, especially in local news media, is not unexpected for academics and so falls short of this mark." GoogleNews gives a total of 6 hits[58], certainly not enough. With WP:BIO, I do not see any examples of in-depth biographical coverage of him by independent reliable sources. All in all, delete. Nsk92 (talk) 23:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated and per views of Nsk92. X Marx the Spot (talk) 00:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. see the argument by creazy suit. Plus the fact that lendering criticez him, makes his works and by this himself notable.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 00:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Being criticized by someone only makes you notable if your critic has the reputation, and the causticity, of A. E. Housman or Alexander Pope. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per failures as stated. Grsz ^talk 01:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Maybe some numbers for the books will help. Of the 4 books listed in the article , 2 are only his various masters and doctoral theses, not actual publications in the usual sense, and do not contribute to notability. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War is held in 176 libraries according to Worldcat. The more specialised Sassanian elite cavalry AD 224-642 is held in 17. One moderately successful boook from a non--notable publisher does not make for notability. Neither does being invited for lectures and interviews here and there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 01:15, 22 September 2008
Keep. WP:PROF clearly states, "If an academic/professor meets none of these conditions, they may still be notable, if they meet the conditions of WP:Notability or other notability criteria, and the merits of an article on the academic/professor will depend largely on the extent to which it is verifiable." If someone is notoble enough to be canvessed by the BBC, VOA, History Channel and media for his opinion on historcial issues, he is indeed notable enough for Wikipedia. Khoi khoi 01:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If WP:N is invoked than the actual standards of WP:N must be applied: "... a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic. "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail ..." The few media stories that you mention quote Farrokh's opinions but in neither of these cases is he the subject of the newsstories and in neither of the cases is the coverage of him significant. Nsk92 (talk) 01:53, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nsk92's analysis. Not enough notable publications, and the other pro arguments are close to vacuous. Professors are occasionally interviewed by the press. This is far more likely to happen in the US on hot political topics like Iran than on other mundane topics. Were these interviews about his books or about his career? If not, and I suspect they were not, then they don't do much enhance his notability. It's well known that the US lacks experts on the Middle East, the US press even more so, thus they invite whoever they can to give "expert opinion" on said countries. Membership into the WAIS discussion list is laughable as argument for notability. VG ☎ 02:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - article is useful in evaluating the sources that he has authored, see no harm in keeping the article Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not include Alex in the comment below; but I don't see how this article helps. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete; if the keep !votes can come up with no better reasons than this, I must indeed conclude the subject is not notable. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 02:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The notability seems to be assured via the sources (BBC, VOA). This passes WP:PROF. However, remove any unverified statements per WP:BLP, and remove any weasel words. All information should be sourced. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two commercially published books which have been somewhat widely reviewed (even if said reviews were less than kind) goes a long way. It does seem that, by any number of measures, this person is notable, although also apparently polarizing. Agree with User:The Evil Spartan that the article, should it survive, should be closely watched for wp:blp, wp:npov, and wp:aww issues. user:j (aka justen) 08:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Problem is, one of those "reviews" is the forword to one of the two books and the other reviews are posted on blogs, not generally considered to be reliable sources. And publishing two books commercially is nothing particularly special for an academic. --Crusio (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We've had a poster on the talk page of his bio and his book, a grad student in Canada who seems to know quite a bit about him although clearly thought she was taking part in some sort of discussion group, who I tried to get to provide some published reviews but so far she has simply mentioned him being evaluated by various academics but with no specifics. I've posted to both talk pages again requesting that as she seems to know academics who know about him, that she finds us some published reviews as so far no one has been able to find anything except stuff on the web. Doug Weller (talk) 09:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget, the two books aren't even in his field of study. He's a linguist/psychologist, not a professional historian. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per many Persian source like alarabiya and iran newspaper^{this is the mirror of them main article unfortunatly search button wasn't working in the main website} radiozamane and many others like bbc and voa --Mardetanha ^talk 08:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete fails WP:PROF per Nsk92's analysis, and clearly fails WP:BIO as well. Claim seems to rest on whether his views pass something akin to WP:FRINGE. Alex Bakharev & Pmanderson's contrasting views seem to get to the crux of the matter. I would be much more sympathetic to Alex Bakharev's position (that a balanced article would allow a reader to evaluate the charge his work is propaganda rather than scholarship) if the article wasn't such uncritical puffery. Hagiography brings me down on Pmanderson's side. Pete.Hurd (talk) 09:37, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's helpful to consider the state of the article, unless you consider it so bad it's best to start again. If Kaveh Farrokh is noteable enough for an article, even if it's because of him being widely known for espousing fringe theories, then he's noteable enough for an article. If the article is not up to scratch then we have to improve it but we shouldn't delete it just because it's not there yet, unless it's irredemable Nil Einne (talk) 09:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, you are totally correct, that notability and quality are two separate issues. Notwithstanding, I don't see the value in retaining this biography of a non-notable pundit for the purpose of rebutting propaganda, as useful aas that may be. It seems clear that this article is destined to be a protracted COI, POV problem, The waste of otherwise productive wikipedians effort in chasing down RP sources to fix it weighs in my views, I'm willing to admit that might not be according to guidelines, but I also don't think it tips me from "keep" to "oppose". Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)r[reply]
    - I'm rather concerned that you seem to think 'if the article demonstrates the guy is a crank' then we should keep it, even if the guy is non noteable but if the article does not, then we should delete it, even if he's marginally noteable. If this was not what you were trying to say then I apologise but it sure sounds like it even if you feel it wouldn't have changed your decision in this instance. The only question that needs to be addressed in a deletion discussion is (by and large) whether the subject is noteable not what we feel the article should be, not even a bit. Beyond an irredemable article, the question of what the article says about the subject is largely irrelevant* and should be resolved via normal editing. You definitely should not be considering whether or not you feel the article is 'useful to rebut propaganda', especially not in a BLP case. And deleting an article because it's too hard to maintain, when the subject is noteable, is very bad practice. If you are unable to put aside your personal feelings about an article's subject when discussing a deletion, you really, really should NOT be supporting or opposing a deletion. It's not wikipedia's job to rebut propaganda or to ignore people because editors feel they are overhyped (and while not addressed at you, it's also not wikipedia's job to overhype people of no noteability). *Obviously when deciding if someone is noteable, we will often rely primarily on what the article and its sources say to establish the noteability but this is not allowing factors other then noteability to affect our decisions. Nil Einne (talk) 20:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - "I'm rather concerned that you seem to think 'if the article demonstrates the guy is a crank' then we should keep it" well, since that's the exact opposite of the point I was arguing, I think you can probably rest easy.... Pete.Hurd (talk) 03:30, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete I don't think it's been sufficiently established that he's noteable. Clearly we don't and shouldn't, have articles on every single person who has been interviewed by the BBC or the History Channel nor on every single peerson who has published a book. If someone's views (including their books) have received significant attention from reliable secondary sources then that person is noteable enough for an article but it's not sufficiently established that this is the case here Nil Einne (talk) 09:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm more notable than this guy! The fact that his books are in Harvard University, UCLA etc libraries does not make him notable (so are my books). Lots of people write academic books. Lots of reviews can be found on the web for books. That's not the criterion for inclusion. He's written a popular history of ancient Persia that Iranians like, but is not treated as greatly significant by scholars. That seems to be it. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't meet the criteria for WP:PROF. I don't have any opinion on his views. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete.
- I have read Shadows in the Desert and it is worse than Lendering said; take for instance, the photos of the Basilica of Maxentius in Rome and the Ardashir palace in Firzabad. They have a superficial similarity, as Farrokh notices, but that is because the Basilica has largely collapsed. There is more nonsense like that. Lendering has been very kind; Farrokh is not a good Iranologist.
- Even if he were, no Iranologist should have an entry longer than Pierre Briant, today's leading expert in this field. If Farrokh's page stays, I propose to abbridge it and add a link to Lendering's review.
- If Farrokh is notable because he has appeared on TV, any movie extra deserves a Wiki page.92.67.221.129 (talk) 12:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. This is a very suspicious vote, the IP is definitely established user with a strong familiarity with wikipedia
  - Any actor/producer/scenarist involved in any movie would be a more appropriate comparison. VG ☎ 12:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. In the TV show "Engineering An Empire: The Persians" he was interviewed along with four other professors/researchers. Only two of them, Patrick_Hunt and Abbas_Alizadeh have bios on Wikipedia, and those two are definitely more notable than Farrokh. So, participation in that show is a marginal argument for Farrokh's notability at best. The other claimed interviews on VOA & BBC are not cited, so it's hard to judge their relevance. Besides, the article does not mention any of these to argue for his notability. VG ☎ 12:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Clearly fails WP:PROF, but the question of whether he is a notable author (with one notable publication, not the four claimed) may qualify him. I suppose being a pseudoIranologist suppurted by the present Iranian government may be adequate notability, as per Trofim Lysenko; not as a scientist or author, but as an example of state pseudoscience. Alternatively, move to his book title, per WP:BLP1E. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:08, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment Farrokh is anti-goverment, that's simply ridiculous. The official policy in Iran is even sometimes against everything before Islamic Iran. The current accepted version of history by Islamic Government of Iran is not pro-preIslamic Iran. The official school textbooks support this idea that Iran history starts and ends with Islam and pre-Islamic Iranian kings and dynasties were bunch of cruel tyrants.--Larno (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator and Nsk92's analysis. In addition, Kaveh Farrokh does not have any articles in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) and Arts & Humanities Citation Index (A&HCI). You can check this from ISI Web of Knowledge (link). ISI Web of Knowledge covers high-impact journals with powerful tools such as cited reference searching. ISI Web of Knowledge gives the clue of notibility of an author (his/her articles and citations given to his/her articles). For Kaveh Farrokh, the ISI search gives nothing. E104421 (talk) 15:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment But his article says "has contributed articles to internationally recognized academic journals such as the International Journal of the Sociology of Language " -- journals plural (but for some reason only one is mentioned, perhaps because there are no more?). Let's see what that was -- here [59] "Iranian Nationality and the Persian Language, by Shahrokh Meskoob / Farokh, Kaveh 117" - if I understand that correctly, he's written a one page review of Meskoob's book (I've checked, Meskoob wrote a book by that name). It wouldn't look quite so good if the article actually linked there and said it was a review. Doug Weller (talk) 16:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete and recommend the keep voters at least TRY to read the policies on notability and verifiability. In order to be notable, they need to meet the requirement at Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria. The fact that they've had a book published is not enough, especially considering the "reviews" are completely outside of WP:RS. He's not in Google news. A handful of websites and one TV appearance does not notability make. Hell, I've been on TV more than this guy. The implication he had something to do with the History channel isn't born out by the channel website OR the link given. The so-called "mentions" and "he's worked for VOA and BBC" boil down to him doing an interviewing someone and I can't find any link on the BBC that mentions him directly at all. Without a lot more verifiability of the sources at hand and some real coverage, I can't see him as notable. His views don't really matter if he can't meet the guideline. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 15:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I think the criteria of General notability guideline have to be considered here .The supporters of deleting , swing between two groups of criteria : when they want to devalue the person's publication , they refer to Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria, and say "he is a popular historian and not academic" : if he is popular that means he is notable ! WP:GNG says :If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be a suitable article topic I think all the proofs that has presented by deletion supporters in devaluation of Farrokh as a scientific historian or a representative of Iranian nationalist interpretations of Near Eastern history, shows the fact that he is notable or to be more percise by Wikipedia:Notability (people) Basic criteria:
A person is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent,and independent of the subject
.
I think if the deletion supporters are skeptical of his scientific value , they can argue on tagging him as "academic" or "Iranologists" ; but not to delete the whole entry .--Alborz Fallah (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per Google scholar and interviewed by news agencies, seems to be notable. BTW, the kerfuffle in this same page, from both sides in two days, shows that a relatively large stock of attention is going to him.--Raayen (talk) 17:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided in this article satisfy the Wikipedia:Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment Sorry for the long comment but the article should stay for many reasons: 1) Author is notable enough and endored by Richard Frye, who is literally the most respected Iranologist. 2) Author is well known in Iranian and Persian media. For example his articles have been translated in several newspapers. His name comes up 22,800 times in google [60] 3) Author's book has received reviews which should make it notable for those interested in the subject.The author has gotten his fair share of reviews here[61].

1)

"This beautifully illustrated book will no doubt serve as a useful companion for all those interested in the military history of the pre-Islamic Middle East... Useful maps, photography and color plates make this a handsome and desirable volume; it will be of interest to students and scholars alike." -Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, University of Edinburgh (Department of Classics)

2)

"... a book for all who have ever been curious about the 'other' view on Persia, not from the Western standpoint rooted in Greece, but from the traditions of the Persians themselves... Meticulously researched and documented... " -Patrick Hunt, Stanford University (Classics)

3)

"In this beautifully illustrated book, Dr. Kaveh Farrokh narrates the history of Persia from before the first empires, through their wars with East and west to the fall of the Sassanians." -Paul Houston, 300spartanwarriors.com

4)

"Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War is perhaps on of the finest books that has been produced from Western publishing houses, in this case Osprey Publishing... For the first time, we see a clearly written history book that outlines the relationship between these Iranian achievements to the wars that took place between the Greco-Roman world and ancient Persia...this book draws on excellent research that has received little mention; not to mention previously un-translated Greco-Roman historical sources." -Professor Nikoloz Kacharava, MD, PhD, The University of Georgia in Tbilisi, Member of Academy of Sciences in Georgia, Active Member of New York Academy of Sciences

5)

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh's "Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War," is the definitive work in the field. This Osprey Publishing effort combines the scholarship of Dr. Edwin Yamauchi's "Persia and the Bible" and Dr. Lindsay Allen's "The Persian Empire" with a readability accentuated by beautiful maps and photography which bring academic data and precise historical analysis into play with the majestically artistic. Put simply, it is a masterpiece and reference work which will stay on the shelf of the interested generalist and specialized scholar for decades to come. -Mark Dankof, Republic Broadcasting Network

6)

For the first time in the field of Iranian studies a hardcover book...that is truly on par with the ones...about Greece and Rome has been published... Dr. Farrokh gives a complete narration of events covering the entire span of Persia's existence... But above all, there are NEW discoveries reiterated and some unraveled by Farrokh himself, such as new aspects of the impact that Persian architecture had on Gothic Europe, new details about Sassanian Aryan knighthood investitures, as well much more. -Maziyar Talaforush, The Persian Mirror

7)

"...those with an interest in this period of history or the military will find it an invaluable resource. Indeed, those pursuing degrees associated with these fields may find It on their required reading lists." -Timothy Baghurst, The Traveler

. There are many more personal biographies in Wikipedia that are less prominent and the nominators for this article are battling in several articles with respect to ancient Iranian history. Thus Farrokh's viewpoint was opposed by the nominator and he brought the issue to deletion here. I would like to simply mention for example the disagreement with Dr. Farrokh here with regards to the nominator for deletion: [62]. The issue seems more personal than academic. Why else should another person like Jona Lendering have a website when she has made common mistakes that were corrected throughout the years of his website. It seems there is a double standard here. Any other person who was interviewed by BBC, VOA, History channel on Achaemenid matters and who has written two books on the subject and who works in the very little known field of Iranian studies would have stayed. I believe the issue is personal. --Nepaheshgar 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Nepaheshgar, I agree with you that some people here seem to be way too emotionally involved. And although this may involve some of the "delete" voters, many of the latter are people that have not been involved in any of the debates that you mention and only give rational, moderate comments (Pete Hurd, DGG -an inclusionist if ever there was one-, Nsk92, and others including myself, I think). And I don't think they care one way or another about Farokh's views, only about creating a good encyclopedia. The arguments to keep this article are among the flimsiest I have seen in most AfD debates up till now. Wow, his book got reviewed on Amazon.com!! By a member of the New York Academy of Sciences (and an active one at that!) Sorry if I am becoming sarcastic, but up till now nobody has come up with a reliable, independent, and veriable source establishing notability. If you want to sway people like those I just listed before, all you need is one or two good sources and I am certain they will immediately revert their votes to keep. If all the people yelling "he's notable, I say so" just spend 10% of their total effort on finding sources, we would already have had them. The fact that we haven't, I gingerly suggest, probably indicates that there aren't any. --Crusio (talk) 18:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crusio, what do you think of all those comments on Amazon? Can they be used? We don't have any sources or context for them, a bit like quotes from critics of a play.

Okay I have been in Wikipedia for a while. How about 22,800 hits in Persian google? [63]What is important is that his book is notable enough in the field of Iranian studies. It has been reviewed by Professors from Harvard(Richard Frye), and Professors from Stanford, Edinburgh and etc. I can show you a person who is not "notable", is not a doctor in the field of history, but has a page Jona Lendering because they run a website and have a book. I think there is more than a double standard here. It is important to note that the field of "Iranian studies" is not noteable in the West so we can not expect him to become noticeable like Michael_Jordan. I note the people that reviewed the book and gave comments also have a Wikipedia page Patrick Hunt, Richard Frye. Again I do not think we should expect anyone from the field of Iranian studies to be noteable when probably 99% of the people would not even know such a field exists. The number of people in the West who are doing research and teaching in the field of ancient Iranian studies is probably around 40. I think it is an asset to Wikipedia to introduce these people and their works. --Nepaheshgar 18:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not mean I want Jona Lendering to be deleted either. Specially since anyone studying in such a narrow field is important and will probably never become noteable. I think the proportion of notability should correspond to the subject matter (the very small field of ancient Iranian studies). --Nepaheshgar 19:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, we cannot compare an Iranologist with Michael Jordan, nor should we. But you refer to reviews by people from Stanford and such. All I have seen up till now is blog-type stuff and a foreword. Thare not independent, verifiable sources. As for the Persian Ghits, English Ghits do not carry weight in an AfD and I don't see why it should be different in this case. Are there any Iranian newspapers that published articles about Farrokh? That would be helpful. As for other people that may be even less notable and still have a WP article, I don't think that indicates a double standard. It just means nobody has gotten around bringing those articles to AfD yet. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS... Thanks for trying to discuss this in a more measured way than all that yelling above :-) --Crusio (talk) 19:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was an edit conflict... Concerning adapting notability standards to the size of a field, that is what WP:PROF does. For instance where citations are being counted. A mathematician, from a field where citation rates are low, can be found notable with an amount of citationsthat would be considered laughable for a neuroscientist, from a field with many more publications and much higher citation rates. But everybody has to adhere to the reliable, verifiable, independent, sources.... --Crusio (talk) 19:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay but the Amazon link should not be considered a blog as far as I know[64]. And it has the review by the Professor in Stanford. And I don't think it is valid to challenge the foreward of his book by Richard Frye unless we have evidence that Kaveh Farrokh wrote it. I think there is a minor pedujice here. I believe we should give the benefit of the doubt that the reviews in Amazon (I am talking about the product review and not the Amazon user/buyer's review) and the foreward to the book are valid. I understand the issue with blogs but do you think somebody blogged a Professor from Stanford in the book of Dr. Farrokh in the Product review (where users can not access). There is an 'Etelaa'at issue(widely circulating newspaper in Iran) which published a translation of Dr. Farrokh's article and gave a brief biography on him. --Nepaheshgar 19:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the book review by Professor. Richard Frye [65]. As you can see this is not in a blog either. If Professor Richard Frye considers it a good book and a Professor. uses the book in University of Toronto, on Achaemenid matters, then it is not just a random book, but a noted book in Academia. --Nepaheshgar 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep As per Nepaheshgar's strong arguments. There's a double standard all right - it appears that some people are taking issues with this author's notability, based on personal preference or possibly his nationality. --AlexanderPar (talk) 19:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What strong arguments? He wrote a book which had good reviews?? VG ☎ 19:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe 1) VOA/BBC/History Channel interviews 2) Book reviews not from some authors but top experts of the field of history like Richard Frye and other authors mentioned 3) Articles he wrote that have been translated in Persian newspapers like Ete'laat (very widely known newspaper). 4) Books being used by students in Western universities[This is an excellent well-illustrated survey of an important period, useful for students and a general readership alike. It deals not only with military matters, but also more broadly with political developments in Persia. My students have consulted it with profit." -Geoffrey Greatrex, University of Ottawa. [66]. 5)The non-notability of Iranian studies makes it is an important field. --Nepaheshgar 19:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the book review by Professor. Richard Frye [67]. --Nepaheshgar 19:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's not go over this again, his appearances on TV have already been debated to death (above), and determined to be marginal towards establishing his notability. You don't seem to have understood Wikipedia:Notability_(academics). I take it you want to claim #7 with his TV/radio appearances, i.e. "The person has made substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I don't think this is the case with one TV show where he was one of 5 experts, and some interviews on radio. VG ☎ 19:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this needs to weighted against the relative non-notability of the field of Iranian studies. For example a positive foreward by Richard Frye who has read and reviewed the book should be taken into account in porportion to the unknown field of Iranian studies. [[68]] --Nepaheshgar 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Strong Keep. If the issue is credibility, I believe Prof. Richard Nelson Frye's endorsement of Farrokh's second book should be enough support for Farrokh's credibility, as Prof. Frye is an authority in Iranian Studies or Iranology. And as Nepaheshgar mentioned above, there are enough endorsement by other notable expert in the field. Also his appearance on History Channel as expert on Achamenid military is another evidence and support. As for notability of Farrokh, there are mention and appearance in English and Persian speaking media like VOA, BBC, Iranian established newspaper (Ettelaat) and such. The field of Iranain Studies in the West is narrow and there are a few dozen well-known scholars and Farrokh is one of them. Shahrbaraz (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Frye's introduction is not a book review. No one has yet found a published book review. Doug Weller (talk) 19:43, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about this one by Fred Rhodes? Khoi khoi 19:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the whole review [69] I think it was in this magazine [70]. Not an academic review. Doug Weller (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One endorsement for a book from another academic does not make him notable, even if that other academic is the leading figure in the field. I see fairly new accounts here that !vote for the first time in an AfD expressing strong endorsements. I assume good faith, but the same tenuous arguments are repeated ad nauseam. VG ☎ 19:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Doug. True it is a foreward and foreward is a higher mention than a book review. But the book is being reviewed in the foreward if you read the whole thing[[71]]. So technically the book has been read, reviewed and commended by Richard Frye and he has praised the book in the foreward. Again Richard Frye of Harvard is the top expert in the field (not just one of the experts but first among equals, specially with regards to the Sassanid era). The field of Iranian studies is non-noteable in the West and virtually no one knows about it. So the matter of attention and notability should be with respect to the relatively miniscule size of the field itself. You won't find 10000's of reviewers and forewards and commendations because there is only a handful of Professors in the field! Note, lets say there is a field called Pokemon studies and there is only 50 Professors and historians in it. Then one review and commendation by the top Pokemon expert should be enough to make it noticeable in the field of Pokemon studies. --Nepaheshgar 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment No, you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward. A forward is not 'higher' than a book review. And Persian studies and Assyriology are definitely well known in the West. Doug Weller (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Persian studies and Assyrian studies are two different field although they overlap. By mentioning them together, you can not cover the fact that Persian studies is a miniscule field relative to Assyrian studies. They are just like Math and Chemistery in terms of relationship, they overlap but they are different fields. Assyrian studies is much more developed field. Persian studies with regards to Sassanid and Achaemenid era, is not. Specially the Sassanid era contains no more than a handful of experts and Richard Frye is the top expert in the Sassanid era. A foreward from Richard Frye (he was not forced), a top living expert on the Sassanid era, and one of handful of experts in Sassanid studies. So a foreward which he accepted to write (the publisher did not force him!) after he read the book, is higher than a book review. He has read the book and commended it and wrote it foreward on it and in the foreward he commends the book. No one (publisher or the author) forced him to do so. And he is one of the few handful of experts in the Sassanid field. Statistically speaking we should not expect more than this given the relatively few people who know about the Sassanid era and the fact Sassanids (despite being one of the two super-powers of their own time for 400 years) get no more than a paragraph in most high-school world history textbooks (which shows the relative anonymity of the field). --Nepaheshgar 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that academics would agree with you about the statistical chance of a review, and as for the size of the field, see [72] -- just in one country, "there are many British scholars, young and old, who are working on academic research relating to Iran in a number of disciplines".Doug Weller (talk) 20:27, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay lets look at the website you mentioned [73]. Now which one of these are experts in the Sassanid era? Name them. Probably no more than one or two. And you are right in one country(Britian which is known to have a stronger Iranian studies program), there are just a handful of people and probably just one or two of them could be Sassanid experts(which ones in the page? I know Melville and Curtis are for sure not Sassanid experts). And of course none of the people there are on the caliber of Richard Frye. --Nepaheshgar 20:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Bosworth (Post-Islamic Iran expert), Tapper (Safavid Expert), Stronach (Achaemenid Archeology expert), Ali Ansari (20th/21th century), Robert Hillenbrand (Persian-Islamic era Minature (started from the 12th century A.D. way after Sassanids). So where are the Sassanid experts on the caliber of Frye in that page? Just name them. The fact is the top Sassanid expert in the field recommended the book, and wrote a foreward for it (willingfully). Your argument with regards to Richard Frye was that "The publisher would not publish it if it were negative"! This is what you wrote: Look at what you exactly wrote: you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward.. Where-as a unbiased person who knows the field would say " The top Sassanid expert read the book, reviewed it and wrote it foreward to it and commended the book". So this shows the political nature of this nomination. And obviously you can't name more than a handful (3-4) experts in the Sassanid field that is comparable to Frye and he is again the first among equals. I believe the statement like: you would never expect a publisher to include a critical forward. shows that this article's nomination is in bad faith. So obviously if Richard Frye, the top Sassanid expert had called the book nonsense, you would have used it here. But now you are saying that Richard Frye's statement is useless, because the publisher would not have published it if it was critical! Instead we should focus on why the top Sassanid expert has given a high mark on a book which covers the Sassanids. And by the way some of those names were not from Britian like Stronach who is an American. So again, there are a few Sassanid era experts, and Richard Frye is top expert. He has given the book a high mark, wrote a foreward for it (willingly and was not forced) and we can not expect 500 reviews/comments when there is really a handful of experts on the Sassanids in the world.--Nepaheshgar 20:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

This is straying off course. I don't know whether Frye is the foremost expert in this field and frankly, I don't care. A foreword is selective. No author will ask someone who is critical about his work to write a foreword. If the foreword turns out to be not to your liking, you throw it out and invite someone else. In short, a foreword is NOT INDEPENDENT (how often do I have to repeat this). PLEASE, one independent verifiable source, is that too much to ask?? --Crusio (talk) 20:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is the foremost expert in the Sassanid field. And there is no more than 10 or so people that are experts in the field. Already, there was a dozen reviews which was posted in the Amazon site from a Professor in Torono, another in Stanford and etc. I believe you are being selective. Else Amazon is not a blog. Lets consider the situation. Person X asks the top expert in the field Y to review his book and if he would like to write it a foreward to it and Y gives it a good review and writes a good foreward. That is all that is needed and the argument stops there. The rest of the stuff about selectiveness and etc. does not hold water. The question is: "Did the top independent expert in the field of Sassanid era endorse book". The answer is yes. Did he do it by his own will independently? Yes. Now you are saying: "If he did not endorse it, then X would not have published it". That is a different argument and we will never know if that is the case or not since Y already endorsed it. In other words, the willingful endorsement of the top expert in Sassanid studies establishes some academic credibility. Specially when the field of Sassanid studies narrows down to just a dozen people or so in the West and none of them really on the Caliber of Frye (possibly one guy in Germany whose name I do not recall right now). --Nepaheshgar 20:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment Frye could be a Nobel Prize winner, for all I care. Notability is not inherited (cannot find the appropriate wikilink right now) and nobody, not Frye, not Einstein, can bestow notability. A foreword is not independent, end of story. --Crusio (talk) 21:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Notability is inherited. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, it says: "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits"? Richard Frye and Kaveh Farrokh are not related. The argument is simple. You will hardly find 5 experts on the Sassanid era throughout the world. So if one of them willingfully accepted to read the book, review the book and write a foreward for the book, then that should be taken into account in light of the paucity of the number of experts specific to the Sassanid era. We are talking about the Academic merit of the book. Frye the top expert commends the book and endorses it. He was not forced to write a foreward. You are claiming the foreward is not independent since if the forward sucks, the person would not include it in the book. But that whole else statement does not hold with this regard, since the foreward was good. Instead one should concentrate on the if part, "The foreward was good". Anyhow this argument is going circular, but I believe if the unbiased reads consider these simple facts: 1) There are only a few people in the field of Sassanid studies and the top person is Richard Frye. 2) The lack of people in the subject (which obviously makes no money) dictates that one would not find dozens of reviews on the book. 3) Independent Professors have also commended the book although none of them Sassanid experts like Frye[74]. 4) The person is well known in Persian language and some of his articles have been published in widely circular newspapers in Iran like 'Etelaa'at. 5) Finally a review of the nominator's edit shows that the issue is beyond Encyclopedic concerns: [75] --Nepaheshgar 21:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see some of the top experts in the field of Iranology [76]. Only Richard Frye is mentioned as a Sassanid era expert. --Nepaheshgar 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Here you can see some of the top experts in the field of Iranology [77]. Only Richard Frye is mentioned as a Sassanid era expert. Some people want an academic review. The top guy qualified to write a review instead writes a foreward and recommends the book. Then, they say this is not acceptable since if the review/foreward was bad, he would not have published! (that is hypothetical situation and it does not exit). It doesn't matter though since the review/foreward was good and no one forced the top expert in the field to write a good review/foreward of the book. And Doug could not find a single Sassanid expert (let alone on the caliber of Frye) in the whole of Britain on the caliber of Frye and that is why I said the field is unknown and we can not expect to find 50 reviews. The ones posted on Amazon and the foreward by Frye in porportion to the minisculeness of the field is what should count.--Nepaheshgar 21:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Comment : Why Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria? Why not WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE?--Alborz Fallah (talk) 20:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, any way of reaching notability is allowed, no need to stick to WP:PROF. But we still need verifiable independent sources under those alternative guidelines. --Crusio (talk) 20:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The nature of "verifiable independent sources" would be different if we use the alternative criteria . The whole logic of deletion supporters is based on on this claim that Dr.Farrokh is not a scientist and is a representative of false Iranian nationalism :say , if their clam is right , still it shows that he is notible . Just look at the whole list of Pseudoarchaeology , Pseudohistory and Pseudoscientists. If you have problem with tagging the article , then why you insist on deleting it ? --Alborz Fallah (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice straw man argument; you're grossly misrepresenting practically all the arguments for deletion raised here. Arthur Rubin mentioned that Farrokh might be notable as a psedoscientist, but he used that as a marginal argument for keeping, not for deleting this article. VG ☎ 22:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well , we are talking on notability : we are not talking on tagging the article . By WP:GNG and WP:PEOPLE criteria , all of the google hits can be considered as notability important ( In contrast of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria).--Alborz Fallah (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

???Dear Alborz Fallah, WP:PEOPLE explicitly states under "invalid criteria": "Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics (e.g., Google hits". WP:GNG Does not even mention Google. Can you explain this perhaps in some more detail? Sorry for being dense, only just had my morning coffee... :-) --Crusio (talk) 10:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this sentence :
Avoid criteria based on search engine statistics... When using Google to help establish the notability of a topic, evaluate the quality, not the quantity, of the links.
Then what's the so called quality of search engine hits ? by Search engine test and Notability:examining the types of hit arising (or their lack) often does provide useful information related to notability. Then again by WP:GOOGLE : [for] Notability, Confirm whether it is covered by independent sources or just within its own circles. OK ! then articles that reject the person , like this one , or this one, are valid , becuase they are neither from the authour's circle , nor dependent to him ( they are against him !) --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In brief , the difference between criteria of sources of Wikipedia:Notability (academics)#Criteria versus sources of WP:PEOPLE is in that in the lather (WP:PEOPLE) , the negative views counts , but in the former (Notability (academics)) , the negative views does not count ! --Alborz Fallah (talk) 12:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the 'reviews' from Amazon - these are actually from the publisher's website [78] and
are basiclly publicity blurbs. One is from Paul Houston who runs his own website. Mark Dankof is a minor radio broadcaster from a minor rightwing American radio network (look him up). Timothy Baghurst is an assistant professor in the Health Science, Kinesiology, Recreation and Dance Department of the University of Arkansas. This smacks of desperation to me and doesn't show notabililty. This list was in the article as 'reviews' and I've added a secton heading to make the source clear, but it shouldn't be there at all. T

Nice try, but Random House (the website you`re linking to) is not the publisher, it`s just an online book store, the reviews in question are originally from Amazon. The reviewers of Kaveh Farokh`s work also include respected acadamics like Professor Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Professor Geoffrey Greatrex, two notable historians and archaeologists - as well as Professor Nikoloz Kacharava and Professor Patrick Hunt --CreazySuit (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment, cleary fails WP:PROF, but since he is the author of a work arguably passing WP:BK, we can easily keep this as a redirect. Redirects are cheap. --dab (𒁳) 11:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Notable in general, not as academic. The above has sufficient documentation for general notability. The lawyering against are becoming additional evidence for the worth of keeping this article too under wp:common. --Buridan (talk) 14:32, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Buridan, that's one of the funniest remarks I have read in an AfD in a long time! --Crusio (talk) 09:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - everything has been said already. Even Richard Nelson Frye has (positively) commented his works. Tājik (talk) 16:20, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- you mean his work (singular), which already has an article, at present not under discussion. This isn't sufficient for a biography article. --dab (𒁳) 19:33, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong KeepBefore anyone elso spews their agenda of nonsense here, consider the fact that Farrokh is more than what he seems. This message below is from the talk page of Battle of Opis, and shows how ridiculus some users are, when trying to suppress the knowledge of good sources concerninig Persian history...

Dr. Kaveh Farrokh being an author, and not an academic is nonsense, notice its 'DR.' and this is what it says on the inside flap of the back cover of his SHADOWS IN THE DESERT book, I cant find it on the net because GOOGLEBOOKS only shows the outside of it, and apparently this text is inside, and this information might even be on Wikipedia about him, AND THE EDITOR OF THE BOOK IS PHD. RICHARD NELSON FRYE, sound familiar?, 'Dr. Kaveh Farrokh has been researching the military history and technology of Persia for two decades. He obtained his PhD in 2001 from the University of British Columbia, where he specialized in the spread of Persian langauges. He has given lectures and seminars at the University of British Columbia and has written articles for various journals. He is the author of Sassanian Elite Cavalry AD 224-642 (2005). He also acts as a historical advisor and expert for film and documentary, working on projects including the film Cyrus the Great and a History Channel documentary on the Persian Empire.'

You have no way of knowing that I did not make this up, but what you can do is go to your local BARNES & NOBLES OR BORDERS, and look for the copy of it, so this disproves the notion that he is just a good author. The point of this message is to take out the 'supposed' nationalistic views, [which are patriotic mostly, which some users have trouble differenciating,] expressed on Farrokh's page, and to include reliable sources concerning his academic state, if he was not notable he would not go on TV and do other notable things, and he has not given 'some' lectures and seminares, but a lot of them by now, Thank you.--Ariobarza (talk) 06:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)Ariobarza talk[reply]

CommentDoing a bit more checking, the 'Professor David Khoupenia' mentioned in the article seems to have been awarded his professorship by an editor some time ago, he is, as the footnote correctly states, Dr. David Khoupenia, who appears to be a Georgia physican working with an American firm in the field of herbal remedies. He gave Farrokh a couple of photographs which he used in Shadows, so I'm guessing at least an acquaintance, and no reason to think he review carries any authority. One of the Amazon blurbs is by a "Professor Nikoloz Kacharava", whose existence I can't verify, although I discovered I could join the 'New York Academy of Sciences' which the blurb says he belongs to just by paying for membership. I can't see a reason to be take this one seriously either without knowing who he is. Doug Weller (talk) 12:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the notoble historians and archeologists such as Professors Patrick Hunt, Richard Frye, Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones, and Geoffrey Greatrex who have given positive feedback to Kaveh Farrokh and his work? You don't pick and choose whose review, or which reviewer, to take issues with. Bottomline is that Kaveh Farokh is a notble author, or else his work wouldn't be praised by the best in the feild of Iranology, and his expertise would not be seeked by media giants like VOA, BBC, The History Channel. --CreazySuit (talk) 15:13, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As has been explained ad nauseam here, if this guy really is so notable, then how come nobody seems to be able to come up with references? Although many people have searched, nobody has come up with a source for the "reviews" that are listed on Amazon and other booksellers pages. That probably means that the publisher just asked those people for a kind tidbit of comment. Happens all the time and most people oblige, but it doesn't mean much. Such kind of blurbs are not "reviews" and are not independent. Nowhere else on WP are such blurbs taken as evidence of notability and I don't see why this should be the case here. --Crusio (talk) 16:37, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's simply your opinion, nothing more. Amazon.com call them "editorial reviews", they're therefore verfible, and were most likley published in print. Classic history is not movie buesines, a great historian like Richard Frye would no give a positive review to a work he doesn't belive in. --CreazySuit (talk) 17:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if they were published in print, where are they? How come nobody can find them? How come you're not telling us where they are? "Most likely" is just speculation. -- ChrisO (talk) 02:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or ~~Keep~~ Merge and redirect to the Shadows entry as suggested above by Dab. The author fails notability standards for scholars.PelleSmith (talk) 14:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I added info to refute the claim that he has won no awards.--Zereshk (talk) 21:01, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Golden Lioness Award, which scores exactly 196 Google hits for me, sounds more like a club of exiled Iranians artists bestowing honors on each other. No evidence that non-Iranians (or Iranians in Iran for that matter) put any value on those awards. VG ☎ 21:39, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

These questions should be adressed first: 1- How large is the population of non-Iranians who could be elligible for such awards? YYou know the anser. Only a few non-Iranians put valuable efforts for Iranian studies 2- why an award which is allegedly issued by Iranians is less worth? Why one which is issued by a non-Iranian to a non-Iranian is more worth? This is double standard. 3- How many of 70 million Iranians have earned such an award, if Iranians are so generous to award each other with these awards? Sorry by I do not think that your arguments are valid.--Babakexorramdin (talk) 22:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Here's a review [79] not mentioned above I don't believe: By Fred Rhodes [80] in The Middle East Magazine. Persian Golden Lioness Awards are notable and are touted by the recipients in their bios, such as Azar Nafisi [81] [82] and Hassan Sattar performed at the 2nd annual awards [83]. This author is definitely notable. One cannot expect that a notable historian would pen a forward for a book he does not respect. Osprey Publishing [84] is not a self-publishing house but a military history publisher. Reviews on Amazon that are written by people who are themselves notable can certainly "count." There are many authors that like to write reviews of the latest books. This book "Shadows" is fairly new (2007/2008) and may not have yet generated a lot of peer review. In fact much of it (the reviews and criticism) may likely not even be in English. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here too is a negative review : [85] and ah yes! now I see it. The author's opinion (a Jona Lendering at his blog /and what makes him more notable than Farrokh?) does not agree with Farrokh regarding the Cyrus Cylinder. Furthermore, this opinion is the very one being advanced at the article by the author of this delete request. The existence of this negative review is evidence in itself of Farrokh's notability. Tundrabuggy (talk) 03:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per DGG, Paul B & others. Doesn't really meet WP:PROF. But media exposure does go towards notability, and he only seems to have moved into the military history field since 2005, so may become more notable as time passes. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the book article, per dab, seems the most sensible option. We'll have the data in the article easily accessible in the history then if it seems appropriate to reconstruct the bio article in the future.John Z (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per Tundrabuggy. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:47, 25 September 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) 00:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

CNBC UK[edit]

Contested PROD. I can find no sources whatsoever to confirm the future existence of this channel. An Ofcom licence grant does not in itself mean a channel launch. The indicated launch date seems particularly spurious. The creator of this page has been responsible for similarly dubious TV channel articles (e.g. Sky 4). Gr1st (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Also unsourced. --Banime (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 18:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per WP:CRYSTAL. Schuym1 (talk) 21:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely, if this article was true there would be sources by now, you don't launch a major network channel without major network hype. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:39, 22 September 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) 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyers' Council on Social Justice[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Lawyers' Council on Social Justice

Despite nearly a month since the speedy deletion was declined, there have been no references or additional claims of / support for the notability of the organization. Not every organization (no matter how well-intentioned or nice) merits a Wikipedia article. Bongomatic (talk) 12:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article fails to demonstrate that it is anything more than a student organization at a single university. —C.Fred (talk) 14:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very small organization with no reliable coverage outside their school's website. --Banime (talk) 16:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Does not demonstrate that the organization is notable. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:49, 21 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Master villains[edit]

I think this is supposed to be a list, but the criteria is vague, and highly subjective. Not to mention there is probably a much better term of something along the lines of Arch nemesis or the like. Crossmr (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete will never be complete due to its vague criteria (What defines an exceptional criminal mind? And intelligence is only sometimes required? But the fictional hero is equally intelligent?). Also, next to impossible to find reliable sources for this. --Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seems like this should be a list somewhere at best. Vague criteria and no reliable sources. --Banime (talk) 16:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Villain where various archetypes of "villains" are discussed. Equendil Talk 22:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inclusion criteria is unclear, which leads to original research. A dumping ground for cruft. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 02:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too vague, original research. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:05, 24 September 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. Good grief seicer | talk | contribs 14:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stickdorn[edit]

Non notable game obviously made up by a group of friends, google search shows no reliable sources talking about the drinking game in question (or any sources, for that matter). Also, winning the game requires someone to yell "CLINT" (The page creators first name per his speedily deleted article Clint Stickdorn), and the name of the game is Stickdorn (which is therefore the creators last name). This is clearly a violation of WP:NOT. Matty (talk) 11:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Waste of space. ~~SIS~~ 11:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:MADEUP. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Simply put, Wikipedia is not the place for things you and your friends made up the other day. RedThunder 12:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Wikipedia is not for stuff made up one day. Schuym1 (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete made up --Banime (talk) 16:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as delete, not a snowball's chance in hell this is going to be kept. Equendil Talk 22:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:20, 22 September 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. Patent nonsense, snowball'ed seicer | talk | contribs 14:10, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talon Kesner[edit]

I suspect this is a hoax. The only Google hits turned up for "Talon Kesner" are for a student in Boise, Idaho, and "Flying Fun Inc" doesn't turn up at all. Further, the Vomit Comet only provides a zero-gravity environment for about 25 seconds at a time, hardly enough time to shoot pornography long enough to base an industry on it. Largo Plazo (talk) 10:56, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Pretty funny, but almost certainly a hoax. Nsk92 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete likely hoax --Banime (talk) 16:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense CSD G1 Equendil Talk 22:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoaxalicious. JuJube (talk) 23:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax, if not nonsense. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do remember reading about something like this a few weeks back in News of the Weird, but it wasn't about this guy. (completely off topic: Apparently the Russians seriously considered letting a porn crew pay for access to the Mir space station, but they couldn't "get up" the funding [86] ) Beeblebrox (talk) 01:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
delete as no reliable sources can be found to show notability. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:35, 22 September 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 decision. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ (Non-admin closure) 00:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Big Brother 2009 (UK)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

While the tenth season of Big Brother UK has been confirmed, having this article now is way too early. This article should be deleted and protected from being re-created until around March when details are released by the broadcaster.

Similar to how Big Brother 11 (U.S.) was deleted and protected from re-creation. (The 11th season of the US edition has been confirmed for the summer of 2009 as well but again no information will be released until next year) ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I had just realized that I made the second nomination to delete this article and didn't know about the first I apologize but the article about Big Brother 11 (U.S.) can't be created right now and it has been confirmed to air in the summer of 2009, the audition process has started, and the executive producers have been already named then this article should be deleted since really the only thing we know is that there will be a tenth season of Big Brother UK. Also if the result of this discussion is keep then the same decision should apply to Big Brother 11 (U.S.) as well and it should be created since more information is known about it right now.♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 10:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Banime (talk) 16:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL and the fact that there'll be nothing else to write about till about March next year. Dalejenkins | 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and Speedy keep on the grounds that this passed AFD with a keep decision TEN DAYS AGO. Articles must not be renominated repeatedly in such a short period of time. 23skidoo (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note Like I said I didn't know this had been nominated when I opened it but if Big Brother 11 (U.S.) can't have an article at this time on the grounds of WP:CRYSTAL then the same should apply with Big Brother 2009 (UK). Both have been confirmed by their broadcasters to return next summer, but with BB11 USA we already know the executive producers and auditions have started. With BB10 UK we only know it has been confirmed, now the reason I didn't close it right after is the simple fact that it is unfair to one article to be created (BB10 UK) while another can't (BB11 USA). If the result of this discussion is keep than an article for Big Brother 11 (U.S.) should be created because they both fall under the same category. ♪♫Al ucard 16♫♪ 19:40, 21 September 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) 00:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ziwo yixiang[edit]

Not notable term with no references to assert notability, written in an essay like style, and unreferenced UltraMagnus (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:V and WP:OR. Google turns up nothing relevant (certainly nothing that would pass WP:RS) except for a few wikipedia mirrors and clones. The article is 4 years old and still no improvements and no references found. Nsk92 (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article is completely unsourced and I cannot find any reliable secondary sources. --Banime (talk) 16:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an originally researched essay. Erik the Red 2 ~~~~ 01:33, 24 September 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 Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. redirect but article history itself deleted. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Suit[edit]

This wad of purely in-universe plot material fails WP:N as it has not been covered in anything other than in-universe or gameguide terms in reliable secondary sources. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not just a gameguide, this has not been covered under any reliable secondary sources. At best merge some of the information with the game's article. --Banime (talk) 16:08, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Banime. VG ☎ 00:48, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to Lost Planet They're the mechs in Lost Planet, the end. Anything more than explaining their role in the game is excessive fixation on a single aspect of the game. A quick search turns up nothing except a list of the suits themselves on IGN, no independent notability demonstrated, does not comply with WP:N or WP:VGSCOPE. Someone another 01:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect An ed. not previously connected with the article just truncated it, removing all of the really absurd detail--absurd even my the most flexible standards--unfortunately there isn't enough information left for an article. I can not immediately see how to do something intermediate. DGG (talk) 04:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a violation of WP:VGSCOPE. Wikipedia is the place for a WP:CONCISEPLOT, not detailed information about in-game items. Also a violation of WP:N for a lack of reliable third-party sources on this topic. Randomran (talk) 02:24, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per others. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:57, 23 September 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. --VS ^talk 08:55, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ava Inferi[edit]

Non notable portuguese band. No independent reliable sources prove its notability. Deleted twice on pt-wiki: pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ava Inferi and pt:Wikipedia:Páginas para eliminar/Ava inferi. Tosqueira (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. —Tosqueira (talk) 07:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes WP:MUSIC with two releases on the notable Season of Mist label, and features the notable Rune Eriksen, now ex-member of Mayhem. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 12:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not pass WP:MUSIC: It has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent from the musician/ensemble itself and reliable. That is not true, the article is almost completely unsourced and has no good verifiable third party sources. --Banime (talk) 16:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Criterion 5 of WP:MUSIC states Has released two or more albums on a major label or one of the more important indie labels (i.e. an independent label with a history of more than a few years and a roster of performers, many of which are notable)., which would certainly include Season of Mist. I agree sources are needed but AfD is not cleanup. Blackmetalbaz (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not an independent source. Tosqueira (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that relevant to the notability criterion in question? Blackmetalbaz (talk) 13:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Wikipedia:Notability. Sources should be "independent of the subject", which "excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including (but not limited to): self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.". A record label is not a independent source. Also, acording to Wikipedia:Notability we need secondary sources. A record label is still a primary source. Tosqueira (talk) 18:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per notable member of the band (Rune Eriksen). If not for that, this would be a good candidate for deletion. Hús ö nd 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs per nominator and Banime. Rune Eriksen's presence is not enough to give this notability-by-association, and the fact it was twice deleted by the Portuguese Wikipedia crowd should give the Anglophonic community a clue that this doesn't belong here. Ecoleetage (talk) 01:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMHO it seems to be only a non-notable (no WP:RS and no WP:IS) side project. Tosqueira (talk) 02:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, is a notable band per WP:MUSIC#C5 and WP:MUSIC#C6. --Amalthea^Talk 00:52, 26 September 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. Original research, snowball'ed seicer | talk | contribs 14:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Value of Being A Vegetarian[edit]

Disputed prod. Essay / original research / POV. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 07:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete Pretty much any article on the subject the value of something is necessarily unverifiable, and this is the worst case scenario. philosofool (talk) 23:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete Holy crap. Essay alert. Some kid typed this up for his homework assignment and posted it on Wikipedia. mboverload @ 07:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. Pure WP:OR and soapboxing. Nsk92 (talk) 12:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not an encyclopedia article but a personal essay. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not an encyclopedic article. --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 13:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an essay. I think I can see a snowflake... Tavix (talk) 15:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just an essay from some kid --Banime (talk) 15:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per WP:OR as an obvious essay with no encyclopedic value. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 17:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete — Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought nor is it a soapbox in which to drill ideologies into others' heads. MuZemike (talk) 18:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — this is the second article in which this had to be done. MuZemike (talk) 18:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as delete per WP:SNOW Equendil Talk 22:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete junk. JuJube (talk) 23:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The value of being a snowball Beeblebrox (talk) 01:57, 22 September 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. Tiptoety ^talk 06:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Mojave Experiment[edit]

The article is about one of Microsoft's latest advertising campaigns. I just don't see what makes this article notable. Are there going to be articles created for every marketing or advertising campaign by Microsoft or any other company? If somehow this article is notable, what about creating an article regarding Microsoft's latest marketing campaign involving Jerry Seinfeld.—User:Kigali1 (talk) 05:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete half of the sources are the main website of the Experiment. The other sources simply don't establish notability. --Banime (talk) 15:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The campaign and criticism thereof are covered in an article in International_Herald_Tribune. I've added the reference to the article. VG ☎ 00:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've added yet another reference to an InformationWeek article. More news stories about the campaign's success or lack thereof can be found by Google news; definite keep — this is not your average PR campaign. VG ☎ 01:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, major campaign which attracted news and online coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, plenty of significant coverage: [87], [88], [89], [90], [91]. the skomorokh 14:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, see Get a Mac. --Ciao 90 (talk) 14:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Just because something is similar to a notable thing, it does not mean the thing itself is notable. You may want to read WP:WAX. Sincerely, the skomorokh 14:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the nominator that we should not have articles for every advertising campaign. We should only have articles for ad campaigns that provide reliable and verifiable sources to establish their notability. This one meets that standard. Alansohn (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also finding some trade publications would help cover specific marketing areas and nuances lost in the general media. -- Banjeboi 08:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep... I guess... can't really see anything fundamentally wrong with this one. Alansohn's got it right though -- as long as a campaign proves its notability, we should document it. That said, Where do you want to go today? was is Microsoft's most popular marketing campaign and we don't have an article on it. Warren -talk- 18:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. I've already created the article for Where do you want to go today? Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If this page is not fit to be a stand-alone article, then neither are any other company's ad campaigns. Also, just because other articles have not yet been created for other campaigns does not mean that this campaign should not be included; it simply means that no one has taken the time (turns out that the controversy over this one was a driving force for contribution). I recommend that we keep this and the others to provide a reference for readers.IncidentalPoint (talk) 20:26, 23 September 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, since Anne Frank's cats was deleted as well. GlassCobra 15:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moffie[edit]

A dab page with two entries, one a dictionary definition and the other a link to a page I have also nominated for deletion, Anne Frank's cats. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Anne Frank's cats. This article can't stand by itself, though. --Banime (talk) 15:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dubious "disambiguation" page at best. VG ☎ 01:10, 22 September 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. Other stuff exists is not a valid rationale. This is a very trivial and non-notable aspect of the book, and only one of the cats (as so noted) is actually owned by Anne Frank. seicer | talk | contribs 14:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Frank's cats[edit]

AfDs for this article:

It boggles my mind that this survived a previous Afd. Anne Frank had cats, but they don't inherit her notability. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability is not inherited and even in within her diary itself the cats are rather minor. - Icewedge (talk) 05:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only one of these is actually Anne Frank's own cat, and that's already mentioned in Anne Frank. Not notable except by association with her, so they don't merit a separate article. Ka renjc 12:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --Ezzex (talk) 12:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unnecessarily detailed treatment of a very minor element of the book. Nsk92 (talk) 12:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not notable --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 13:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Interesting subject even if the only notability is the association with Anne Frank. The article should be expanded a bit, perhaps with how naming the cat Mouschi actually just meant "kitty" or "pussy" in their language. At worst I see a merge with the original Anne Frank article as it is still informative and about a notable subject (Anne Frank, and her cats). --Banime (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If Wikipedia has an article on Hitler's dog, what is wrong with one on Anne Frank's cats? Why are pet articles not in general merged to the notable owner's article, when the pet would have zero notability without the owner being notable, even if there are sources mentioning the pet because of who owned it? Edison (talk) 16:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately that looks like you are bringing up Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists which is not any sort of valid defense for keeping the article. I do agree however that the article is useful and informative. --Banime (talk) 16:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with other topics of this nature, one has to look at the amount and depth of secondary source coverage. I think that even for Blondi, Hitler's dog, the notability case appears weak, but it is stronger there than here. Blondi was in fact extensively used for propaganda purposes in Nazi Germany to portray Hitler as an animal lover. There is also more, and more in-depth coverage of Blondi in post-war sources, such as a section about Blondi in "Dog Years", a novel of Günter Grass. There does not appear to be a similar degree of coverage in relation to Anne Frank's cats. They are mentioned primarily in her diary (a primary source), and, mostly in passing and episodically, in a few other places. IMO there is not enough here to justify a separate article. Nsk92 (talk) 17:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nsk92. As much as I like Anne Frank's diary, WP:fancruft applies here as well. VG ☎ 01:16, 22 September 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. GlassCobra 15:16, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew M. Hill[edit]

There doesn't seem to be an indication of notability. The article says that Matthew M. Hill has a Ph.D., has worked on mapping the genome of one species, and has published several scientific papers, but these facts do not seem to distinguish him from other researchers in his field. (Please note, however, that I am not at all acquainted with this field, so perhaps there is some especially notable achievement of Dr. Hill.) The external links point to two copies of one of his papers. On the talk page, a user by the name of Mhill76 claims to be Matthew M. Hill, states that he does not meet the requirements for notability, and requests the deletion of this article. —Bkell (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —Nsk92 (talk) 12:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak keep~~Delete. I respectfully disagree with Dr. Hill. Web of Science lists 38 publications, which have been cited 964 times in total. His h-index is 12. Three papers have been cited more than 100 times (max: 173). This all points to notability. On the other hand, he has been publishing since 1989, so these figures are relatively modest. Hence I !voted "weak keep". If consensus wouldbe that we should give more weight to his own wishes, I could change to "delete". The article could be beefed up a bit and a disambiguation page seems to be in order, too. --Crusio (talk) 12:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Crusio's WoS results are a case of mistaken identity. GoogleScholar gives substantial results for "M.M.Hill"[92] but on closer inspection they appear to be mostly false positives (the top hits are actually for "Michelle M. Hill"). A Googlescholar search for "Matthew M. Hill" produces rather modest results [93]. My impression is that the pubmed results and the WoS results cited by Crusio actually aggregate all the "M.M.Hill"s together (for example, for pubmed[94] a number of articles from 1960s are listed there and they are highly unlikely to be written by the subject of the article). WoS only allows searches for initials and rather than first and middle names and the high citation hits that Crusio found there actually refer to another person. I also did a WoS search for "M M Hill" and the paper with 173 citations listed there is actually this one:[95], where the author is "Michelle M. Hill". Another paper, with 128 citations in WoS is this:[96] (also "Michelle M. Hill"). And so on. In the absence of conclusive evidence of notability under WP:PROF (in terms of high citability, awards, honors, etc) and since the subject of the article apparently requests deletion, I would certainly go with delete. Nsk92 (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, should have realized that Hill is a common name, just thought that with two initials, the risk was small... --Crusio (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

delete per Nsk92, Bkell & Mhill76. Pete.Hurd (talk) 14:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete isn't distinguished enough in his field to warrant an article. --Banime (talk) 15:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the results of the fairly helpful gophering above. Protonk (talk) 23:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I added that mention of 42 articles, and I see that I too was wrong. A paper on the basic genome of a species can sometimes be highly cited, so I accepted the counts, but I should have checked further. DGG (talk) 01:23, 22 September 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) 00:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Village Candle[edit]

Non-notable company. The article has been repeatedly created and repeatedly deleted as spam. There is an apparent COI in the necessity to repeatedly recreate the article. The original recreator of the article has repeatedly removed the speedy deletion tag. See the history of Village candle as well. Corvus cornix_talk 04:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete Their major competitor, Yankee Candle Company, has an article unchallenged here (it provides much better evidence of WP:N and WP:V). I suspect the serial recreation of this article is indeed COI, and is based on the company's wish to be seen to "be here too". The notability assertions appear weak. Is having the biggest candle shop in Maine notable? Is very fast growth notable, unless it has made you the market leader? Of the refs (discounting the self-published ones), the Reuters Business one is a verbatim Village Candle press release, the Fox News is good but only mentions the firm incidentally rather than as the main subject of the article, and the 1099.com (mirrored from a profile here) probably does count as nontrivial, but I can't find any others. I'd be happy to reconsider with more sources or a stronger assertion of notability, but right now I can't see a good case for inclusion. Ka renjc 10:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Given its history it seems like spam and advertising for some company. Per Karenjc above, if the article can be expanded and improved then I could reconsider but right now this article should be deleted. --Banime (talk) 15:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I have added the speedy delete to the article a few times. Advertisement. Schuym1 (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I tagged it for speedy deletion several times. TML (talk) 04:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Only out of fairness, because there are 2 or 3 other comparable candle-company articles out there. --Lockley (talk) 00:18, 24 September 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) 00:23, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of people who died before the age of 30[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Major violation of WP:NOT#INFO. This provides virtually no useful information. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A list of people I outlived is arguably interesting, but not encyclopaedic. Orderinchaos 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC):[reply]
Delete No reason to have this. KJS77 Join the Revolution 04:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree with the above. This list, having a randomly chosen age for inclusion, is unencyclopedic and difficult to maintain. This list is rather useless due to the sheer number of people that qualify for inclusion. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:35, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a sobering thought to realize that by the time Mozart was my age, he had already been dead three years. However, it's not sobering enough to justify this list. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. No new arguments for deletion since last time. —An gr 14:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is new arguments and it seems like everyone else would agree with me because they decided that it should be deleted. Why don't you actually read the AfD instead of automatically deciding that it can't possibly be deleted because it is a 2nd nomination. Tavix (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - in addition it should be noted that the previous AFD ended with a no consensus decision, meaning it's fair game for fresh discussion. 23skidoo (talk) 16:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too broad of a topic to be used as a list, and it can't ever be complete. Why 30 and not 29? Why include some people but not others? WP:SALAT says "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value." This list would fall under that category and it just simply isn't useable as being this broad. Tavix (talk) 14:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Pretty interesting subject, and it is useful to be able to look up who died young in one list. It seems kind of arbitrary at age 30, however. --Banime (talk) 15:30, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Arbitrary cutoff. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 16:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:NOT#INFO. And probably better suited, if at all, as a cat that supports hierarchy/tiers (i.e. this cat a subset of "People who died before age 40"). (<-but, really, I'd still think that was dumb.) --EEMIV (talk) 16:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#INFO. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I also side with WP:NOT#INFO. There is nothing particularly notable about this age (there are countries in the world today where that's the life expectency) and this list could in theory contain the list of every child, teenager and 20something who has ever lived - millions of names. Unmaintainable and unencyclopedic. 23skidoo (talk) 16:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retitle and change criterion In some cases an early death is relevant, but this is far too general. I can see the point of a list for the relatively few children who have articles in Wikipedia, but not for this. I suggest that "under 21" might be a defensible separation, In that case the relevant portion of this article could be reused DGG (talk) 01:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really isn't a proper topic, even if we turn it into age 21: consider that vast numbers of little children in past ages (and even today in less developed regions) died in infancy. Even if we made it "died before the age of 1" we'd have a huge, unmaintainable list. Nyttend (talk) 04:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, again. Just like I said at the last AFD, this article was previously named List of famous people who died young and List of people who died young before it was renamed List of people who died before the age of 30 in January 2008. Most of the people arguing for deletion seem to be arguing over the current name of the page. Famous people dying young is a notable topic. And the information in the article is verifiable. The article could probably benefit from a new title. --Pixelface (talk) 05:22, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Regardless of the outcome of this debate, I would recommend that someone put this on Deletionpedia. The existence of that option shouldn't affect how this closes out, but it is well-organized, informative and interesting -- all qualities that have nothing to do with whether the topic is something to be part of Wikipedia. I can't bring myself to say "keep", because it does seem like an arbitrary segment of people. This is, essentially, a list of victims of homicides and accidents; and to me, the death of a person at age 29 is no less tragic that the death of a person at age 31. I also find it odd to group people who are 18 to 29 in with children and teenagers. To its credit, the table is arranged by age, so that it could be split up as necessary, with sections that equate to "List of people who were 23 years old when they got killed". Given that this may not survive deletion, I hope that the editors will preserve it in other media. Mandsford (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None of us can do that. Deletionpedia is automated. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I stand corrected. After looking at the site, I have also learned that it's not the afterlife for deleted articles, it's more like a cryogenic storage facility. In other words, there is no editing and the article is frozen. Mandsford (talk) 16:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I concur with the nominator. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I concur with pd_THOR. Eklipse (talk) 13:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Categorize A list like this could justify similar lists for every age group. I would support categories being created for people who died at each age, regardless of what the number is, and these categories being placed into a parent category of deaths by age. Sebwite (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and categories. We66er (talk) 05:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm very rarely in favor of deletion, but this one is completely unmaintainable. If anyone really cares, they can just write a script that does this (but better) on another website. --Explodicle (T/C) 13:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and categorize per User:Sebwite—Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewedwards (talk • contribs) 23:27, September 3 2008
Delete, way too broad. --Stormie (talk) 05:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NickW557. Adambro (talk) 07:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as completely arbitrary list. See WP:LC, items 1-4 and 6. Why age 30? Stifle (talk) 15:36, 24 September 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 under WP:CSD#G3 as obvious hoax/vandalism. — Satori Son 13:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Snoodling[edit]

Non-notable neologism. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary, it isn't Urban Dictionary either. KJS77 Join the Revolution 04:31, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. Has potential regardless of the intentions of the authro. Bilodeauzx (talk) 05:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Cunard (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete looks like an urbandictionary addition. --Banime (talk) 15:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, but UrbanDictionary is that-a-way. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 17:03, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is the work of a serial hoaxer with at least two sockpuppets. See my comments and proof at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mwynyw. Could an admin take action, please? Enaidmawr (talk) 00:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment. I did not write this article, nor have I ever hoaxed cereals. Thank you. Bilodeauzx (talk) 02:14, 23 September 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. Original research seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Share Links[edit]

The original editor admits it's a neologism he's invented. No indication that it is used anywhere except by the OE; no independent sources. This article was previously deleted via proposed deletion. The recreation is a de facto contesting of the prod, so AfD is now the correct venue for deletion discussions. —C.Fred (talk) 04:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Kill this crap with fire mboverload @ 04:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research. KJS77 Join the Revolution
Delete OR --Banime (talk) 15:25, 21 September 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. GlassCobra 15:14, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Money Dealer Channel[edit]

Fails WP:WEB. Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Something somebody wrote to promote their YouTube channel. WP:COI. KJS77 Join the Revolution 04:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete terrible article at best, unsourced, non-notable. --Banime (talk) 15:24, 21 September 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. No evidence of notability. TravellingCari 03:10, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Phaedra (R&B Songstress)[edit]

Non-notable performer, has yet to produce an album. This article was already speedily deleted, but has been recreated. The original version of the article, deleted just yesterday, was created by a User who has been blocked due to the fact that their User name, User:Brand Engine, is the name of Phaedra's management. The article was then immediately recreated by a new user. The name of the article itself is problematic, but the subject of the article herself is not notable. Note that the current version of the article is a copyvio from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=50386241, which is the reason the article was deleted in the first place, but I would prefer an AfD to verify that she, herself, is not notable rather than a beureaucratic deletion due to copyright violation, so we can put a stake into the article once and for all. Corvus cornix_talk 03:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article probably created so that people without MySpace and use Wikipedia can read about her and her career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.169.66 (talk) 19:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not a valid keep criterion. Please read WP:BIO and WP:MUSIC. Corvus cornix_talk 20:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete was already deleted and immediately recreated, seems just like advertisement. --Banime (talk) 15:23, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Wikipedia is not a MySpace substitute. VG ☎ 01:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is a valid wikipedia article that gives information about an artist that has had success in the industry by having a gold record. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeSlickNick (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- BeSlickNick is the original creator of the article, and is presumably the same as User:Brand Engine, and therefore a representative of this singer's management company. Corvus cornix_talk 01:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- And please provide evidence of the gold record, since the link to Lady Soul goes to the Aretha album, and not to an article about the group. Corvus cornix_talk 01:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: 66.120.237.162 (talk · contribs) has vandalized this AfD discussion. Corvus cornix_talk 23:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no sources for WP:MUSIC. We66er (talk) 05:48, 23 September 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 as blatant and obvious misinformation (CSD G3). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Snap! (TV movie)[edit]

Apparent hoax. No references to this supposed TV movie on Channel 4's website or anywhere else. A film with these stars would have significant coverage, even if it was just something in pre-production. Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just a load of crap, probably an attempt at humor. KJS77 Join the Revolution 04:37, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. -- treelo _radda 11:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A hoaxy, poor attempt at being funny mixed in with an attack on actress Catherine Tate. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 13:45, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete hoax --Banime (talk) 15:22, 21 September 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 WP:CSD#A7'd by User:Gwen Gale. Non-admin closure. AllynJ (talk | contribs) 15:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Hoekstra[edit]

I'm a heartless prick, sorry. Article that was created only after this person died.

Although he has done some awesome stuff I do not thing he is eligible for inclusion in Wikipedia.

Please, let God be the judge of my sins, let you be the judge of Wikipedia. mboverload @ 03:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per CSD A7. Subject is not notable and there is really no claim of notability anywhere in the article. --Nick—^Contact/_Contribs 03:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per Nick. The article contains no reliable sources. A Google search on this individual only returns results from blogs and the website of a professor of the same name. This article doesn't even establish a shred of notability. Cunard (talk) 05:41, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under A7 and so tagged. Special K(KoЯn flakes) 08:33, 21 September 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 Rubik's Cube pending editorial merge. lifebaka++ 04:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rubik's Cube software[edit]

This is not an encyclopedia article. This is just a place for people to create a web directory to websites with nonnotable software. Wikipedia is not a web directory. This article is unsalvageable. DreamGuy (talk) 02:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Stick some of the links of the most famous software into the Rubiks Cube article and delete this one. mboverload @ 03:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per mboverload, any notable software put into the original rubiks cube article, but this article shouldn't exist. Wikipedia is not a directory to little known software. --Banime (talk) 15:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as mboverload wrote. VG ☎ 01:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR, but first move whatever is notable to Rubik's Cube. Sebwite (talk) 01:54, 23 September 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 Deletet -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:33, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sarkar Laxmichand Hingarh[edit]

If he were as famous and godly as this completely unsourced article claims, he'd have more than 13 hits on Google VG ☎ 02:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete I have nomed it for speedy. mboverload @ 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unverfiable Shyamsunder 17:18 21 September 2008 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Cirt (talk) 00:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of African languages by country[edit]

Much the same rationale as for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of European languages by country, though the situation with languages in Africa is even more complex than the European one. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 02:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-useful list; what does this add to just looking up each country and seeing its major languages? The reverse list (languages by countries that see nontrivial use of them) would be more defensible. JJL (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consider doing the reverse list, as I feel that would be useful. This however isn't very useful at all. --Banime (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The history indicates that this is an orphaned article that isn't much changed from where it stood as of last November [97]. This may indicate that the original editors had second thoughts about the format rather than the topic, but there's no reason that someone can't attempt a future article about the languages spoken on the continent. Mandsford (talk) 12:56, 23 September 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) 00:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Choi[edit]

Only claimed source of notability is that he is the 11th most subscribed YouTube user.

Willing to withdraw if anyone find any solid coverage of him. mboverload @ 01:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he gets three paragraphs in the San Francisco Chronicle[[98], but that is about all. - Icewedge (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete in addition to Icewedge above I found a source on starmometer, but that is all. To even have a chance of staying this article would have to be expanded and sourced considerably. --Banime (talk) 15:04, 21 September 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 redirected to LaDell Andersen. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LaDell Anderson[edit]

This article name is a misspelling of the intended subject: LaDell Andersen. Since the article LaDell Andersen exists and contains essentially all important information in the LaDell Anderson article, there is no need to retain this erroneously created article. There are no article links to LaDell Anderson, so impact of deletion is minimal. Myasuda (talk) 00:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Its the obvious choice. smooth0⁷0₇ (talk) 01:32, 21 September 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, AfD close in non-admin closure, in accordance to the Snowball Clause in WP:NAC. Arbiteroftruth (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HonestReporting[edit]

FAILS WP:N CdC—Chuleta de Chancho (talk) 00:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is one of the two most notable pro-Israel media watchdog groups -- the other being CAMERA. It has made the news on numerous occasions, for example in the New York Times ([99]), The Independent ([100]), Yediot Aharonot ([101]), and the Jerusalem Post ([102]). The organization is apparently notable enough to have generated a number of critic websites ([103][104]). It is also mentioned by the pro-Palestinian magazine Electronic Intifada on more than one occasion ([105][106][107]). In short, HonestReporting definitely does meet the guidelines for notability (esp. compared to some wiki topics; e.g.: this). ← Michael Safyan^(talk) 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been mentioned at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Many press references. What's the problem? Nom lacks details. --John Nagle (talk) 05:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep of course, per Michael and John Nagle, there are many refs in and out of the article.John Z (talk) 10:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage by independent sources, passes WP:ORG and WP:N. Apart from the sources cited above, here is a newsarticle specifically about this organization [108]. Nsk92 (talk) 13:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand with more sources --Banime (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't like Honest Reporting; but I don't like The Sun either, and would never see that as a criterion for deleting the article. RolandR (talk) 18:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but on a related note Honest_Reporting_Canada should be merged into the main HonestReporting article as two articles dealing with two branches of what is basically the same organization is overkill. --John Bahrain (talk) 19:10, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reaosnably notable, no reason not to cover. -- Y not? 00:20, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep per all the above. VG ☎ 01:32, 22 September 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. I predict that this article will be deleted for being a crystal ball'er seicer | talk | contribs 14:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Family Guy: Shown in the Cinema, on November 23rd[edit]

Too soon for an article, only Google hits I could find say the movie is in talks, no plot, no release date (like in the title) Caldorwards4 (talk) 00:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is not even enough information for any sort of article. The article is completely unreferenced, and very few google hits with any sort of information or from reliable third party sources. --Banime (talk) 00:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. MuZemike (talk) 01:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The odd title is based on the assertion, since removed, that the film would be released "on November 23, 2010". It could begin production within the next year. Let's wait to see what President Palin has to say about it. Mandsford (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Let's wait to see what President Palin has to say about it." Please, this is a family-friendly encyclopedia. We don't want to scare people. :) JEdgarFreeman (talk) 01:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this unverified crystal ballery. It's already mentioned, though not sourced, at Family Guy#Feature length productions anyway. Cliff smith ^talk 01:59, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax article similar to a previously deleted Drawn Together article created by the creator of several previously deleted articles. Many sources are complete speculation, stemming merely from a comment made by Seth MacFarlane on The Tonight Show (and even that seems to say that he only said that he was "in talks with Fox Film" and that a film could be produced next year). It's mostly crystal ballery mixed in with hoax and pure speculation Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lack of reliable sources, crystallery, etc. miranda 06:11, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Apparently Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters has inspired some editor here to create a series of other articles about theatrical films with long and implausible titles based on animated television series. However, we are only interested in such articles if the theatrical films actually exist. Please warn the article creator accordingly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 07:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DELET'D! -i know it's CoolNSexyRickz all the time. He's not welcomed in this Wiki. TVB 11:11, September 21, 2008 (UTC)
Requested speedy deletion. There is almost no real content in the article --Church of emacs (Talk | Stalk) 13:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You can't request an article for speedy deletion while it is undergoing an AFD. AfD is used to determine consensus to see if an article should be kept or deleted. miranda 15:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never heard of there being anything wrong with tagging an article for speedy deletion when it's up for AfD, presuming the speedy tag is appropriate. Have you got a link to this, by any chance? Just curious. (Although, for the record, I don't think the tag *was* appropriate in this case. Also for the record, staying neutral in this debate.) AllynJ (talk | contribs) 17:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Schuym1 (talk) 16:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as classic WP:CRYSTAL situation. Also, the title given to this article is not only puzzling, it makes the whole thing look like a hoax. 23skidoo (talk) 16:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notable information is confirmed. Martarius (talk) 06:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources given don't include that title. I said it before, and I'll say it again, this reads more like something read straight from a movie poster rather than an actual movie title. Most movie posters have release dates. Sure, McFarlane gets often too unrealistic with his gags, but common, would he make such a ridiculous title? I don't think so. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 13:38, 22 September 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 per WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 21:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shikoku Eighty 8 Queen[edit]

I can't find any reliable sources for this team. The only source on the article is the official site. The league that the team plays in doesn't have a page, same with the members. Schuym1 (talk) 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete completely unsourced and looks to be completely non notable --Banime (talk) 00:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice. But Eighty Eights exist in V.challege leage (Japan). The source is V.League Official website.
http://www.vleague.or.jp/prog/team/team.php?mode=pc&kind=outline&season=&league=challenge_w&teamid=w_88queen
I'm not good at writing English, so you may un-believe the article. --Chiba ryo (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not independent of the subject. Schuym1 (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- You creating a page for the league wasn't such a good idea because the league appears to be non-notable also. Schuym1 (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. VG ☎ 01:33, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Can someone clarify something for me: is this a fully professional league? If so, then by WP:ATHLETE a player for this team would be notable, and by extension, the team and the league itself. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I really don't know. When I searched for sources, all I could find was a bunch of blogs. Schuym1 (talk) 19:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you search in Japanese? Sources for second-level leagues (of anything but football) are likely to be only in the country's language. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Just an observation: Arguments for non-notability based on lacking an article is highly dubious when it comes to anything in non-English-speaking countries. Wikipedia has vast holes in its coverage outside the Anglosphere. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here is what I found: http://www.stjohns.edu/athletics/pr_atl_070518b.stj. Does that count as a fully professional league? Schuym1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Schuym1 (talk) 20:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, it's in English. Schuym1 (talk) 20:06, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it does, I will withdraw this as WP:SNOW. Schuym1 (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Would a fully-professional league team normally play a college team from another country? Honest question: I don't know enough about volleyball. But color me skeptical. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 22 September 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 improvements. GlassCobra 15:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. 158[edit]

Delete as an unnotable elementary school. Tavix (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, completely unsourced. --Banime (talk) 00:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true any more. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced and little content. It's probably just as well that it has no sources, or there would be somebody who would urge a keep because "It's been mentioned in The New York Times so it has to be notable!" No reason, however, that this can't be mentioned in an article about the Region 9 schools. Mandsford (talk) 01:19, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As proven below, it does have in depth sources beyond "mentioned." --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand with information from the following NYT articles: [109], [110] and, especially [111] which shows the notability -- an long 2008 NYT article devoted primarily to the school, and [112], a NYT article specifically on the history of the school. And from another source, [113]. As for mentions, there's a few hundred in G News, but I didn' t include these. Few elementary schools could match this now--the prominence is not accidental--consider the school location. However, as more newspaper backfiles become easily available, I think we will be able to find something close to this for a few hundred at least--very few major newspaper backfiles are as easily available as the NY Times. DGG (talk) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nn; sources above mostly use it as an example (e.g., "hundreds of city schools like P.S. 158") or a trivia story (the archivist). JJL (talk) 03:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage is in-depth. That it's covered as an "example" is all the more indication of its notability. The New York Times describes the attributes of this "example" in detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per the in-depth New York Times articles on this topic found by DGG above, one of which written by noted journalist Jacques Steinberg. --Oakshade (talk) 05:47, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete lacks any sources and notability, also in regards to the above comments just because it is mentioned in the New York Times does not make it notable. If that were the case then thousands of people listed in the obituaries every year would be notable and deserve their own wikipedia articles, why because they are in the New York Times.--User:Twkratte 06:06, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lacks any sources? That's completely contradictory of reality. The scope of the NYT coverage is far beyond "mentioned" and is in great detail. --Oakshade (talk) 06:12, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What is the actual notability being claimed here? It has produced "some of the highest" test scores in a particular city, it is "considered one of the best" schools in that particular city, and it's one of a number of schools taking part in a pilot scheme for standardised education. Of the two refs, the Steinberg NYT article is a piece about the pilot scheme which just happens to use this participating school as an example - it doesn't say the school is special or different from the others piloting the scheme - and the Siegal article is a local-interest story about some old written records turning up. No assertion or sourced evidence for the school's notability per se. Ka renjc 12:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per Karenjc. It looks like there's not much material to expand the article, so it seems like this will be another stub forever claiming "this school exists". VG ☎ 01:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment how about that article devoted specifically to the history of the school? How many elementary schools have something like that? And I want to mention that I have over the last two years been among those trying to keep most articles about elementary schools merged or deleted. This is not one of the areas where I'm an inclusionist--far from it. This one is an exception--at least it is till the world recognizes the rest of them as being worth this kind of detailed coverage and major newspapers and magazines give it. DGG (talk) 04:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned this in what I hope will be considered neutral terms at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Schools, to get some wider discussion, , given that most people are rather bored with school afds. DGG (talk) 04:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went back to look at the refs cited in the article again in the light of DGG's comment above, assuming I'd missed something, but I haven't. The Siegal piece here is a few paragraphs - headed "Neighborhood Report: Upper East Side" - (my italics) about some old journals turning up that will give the school's Parents Association some material to help celebrate its centennial. It's not "an article devoted specifically to the history of the school", it's a couple of nice local interest paragraphs about a local school, and I honestly can't see how it can be said to be nontrivial, even if the local paper it's printed in happens to be the New York Times. Ka renjc 08:15, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Trivial" as defined by WP:NOTABILITY refers to "directory listings" or "passing mentions." Being the in-depth subject of two New York Times articles is far beyond a directory listing or passing mention. There has never been a "Local sources don't count" clause in any Wikipedia standard or guideline.--Oakshade (talk) 08:44, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The actual wording I'm working from is: The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability. The source's audience must also be considered; evidence of attention by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability, whereas attention solely by local media is not an indication of notability. I really do respect the basis of your argument, and I have no personal feelings about the school and this AFD one way or the other, but I just don't see how the two sources together amount to substantial coverage of the school in its own right, or how the Siegal piece can be described as substantial or nonlocal. But I'll shut up now and let others decide :) Ka renjc 09:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what is it about this school that is alleged to be noteworthy? The article says that it has "some of the highest test scores" and is "considered one of the best schools" and was "one of the first schools in the city to adopt very stringent teaching requirements" and I don't see how any of those accomplishments are especially significant. JJL (talk) 19:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reliable and verifiable sources provided are unquestionably about the school, satisfying the Wikipedia:Notability standard. This is a notable exception from the vast majority of elementary schools that would be unable to establish their notability using strong quality sources. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Every elementary school has been written about in a reliable and verifiable source, so there is no exception here. Mandsford (talk) 18:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not every elementary school has been the in-depth subject of major reliable sources like the New York Times as this one has. I've been editing on Wikipedia since 2006 and keep a very close eye on places AfDs and I've seen only a few elementary schools that have survived AfDs because most don't pass the core criteria of WP:NOTABILITY as this one has.--Oakshade (talk) 18:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As with the Associated Press, the New York Times has a wire service and NYT stories are frequently reprinted elsewhere in the nation and the world. If P.S. 158 has been a news item in another paper besides the Times, that would be evidence of notability. Perhaps a better analogy would be the NYT's obituaries page. Having one's obituary there can be a sign of notability, as the 2000 book Fame At Last demonstrated; or it can be a sign that one was a resident of Queens, Brooklyn, Manhattan, the Bronx, etc. and that funeral services are at 1:00 this afternoon. Mandsford (talk) 20:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no "Sources must have been re-printed elsewhere" clause or anything like it in WP:NOTABILITY. If you'd like to introduce such a clause, you are welcome to suggest that on WP:N's talk page. The obituary argument is a red herring one as this is not an obituary, nor is it one that anyone can submit to a newspaper to be published in the "death notices" section. These are in-depth articles by a very reliable source written by reporter (one a very noted one) that have nothing to do with public submissions. --Oakshade (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need to introduce a clause. I think it's fair to say that if this were Taylor Elementary School in Seymour, Indiana, and the claim to notability for Taylor Elementary was an article in the Seymour News entitled "New Standards Finding Way Into Schools" or "Journals Solve A School Mystery", most people would not consider that school to be worthy of its own Wikipedia page. But what would be the difference between the two schools? This discussion is likely to end in a keep or a no consensus, but honestly, P.S. 158 is no more special than any other elementary school. Mandsford (talk) 23:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability has nothing to do with being "more special" than anything else, nor does it have anything to do with "fame," "importance" or "popularity". I think that it's fair to say that if the Seymour News is a reliable and verifiable source independent of the school, and if it has included significant coverage in the form of relevant articles that are about Taylor Elementary School, then a prima facie case would be met that the Wikipedia:Notability standard has been satisfied. That is the exact definition of notability. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the New York Times references found by DGG and per the notable alumni section added by Jh12. I also found this mention in a book, which shows that the school has taught deaf children. And I also found another mention in another book which shows that the elementary school has been open sinc 1898. The media coverage in the NYT articles, the notable alumni, and the several literary appearances clearly establish this school's notability. Few elementary schools have that many reliable sources. Cunard (talk) 02:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per DGG and sources; elementary schools are not known for their publicists. -- Banjeboi 07:24, 23 September 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. GlassCobra 15:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dirty Karma[edit]

Currently non-notable album by a currently non-notable band. Limited ghits, no third-party references, can't find an entry on allmusic - fails WP:BAND. (Article synopsis section is also a copyvio of [114], though this may be due to creation by the same person). CultureDrone (talk) 12:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Without non-trivial coverage of their national tour from a reliable source, the band does not meet WP:MUSIC (note: the article's about the band, not an album). Also fails WP:V. —Hello, Control ^{Hello, Tony} 19:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the article is about the band now, but was about the album when I proposed it for AfD :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 00:09, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable, completely unsourced, just a link to their myspace --Banime (talk) 00:42, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unsourced and non-notable. No reliable ghits in sight. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 20:30, 21 September 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. Black Kite 23:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tania (The Faerie Path)[edit]

Non-notable fictional characters from book by redlinked author. Somno (talk) 05:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination also includes:

Delete Fictional characters from a book have no encyclopedic value. Information on these character can be dealt with on the books article page, unless they are well noted in popular culture and seem to have a life of their own outside of the book.--«JavierMC»|Talk 06:13, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys. I understand your comments about the redlinked author. I have written a letter to the publisher requesting forward to the author. I've asked him some information about himself, other books he has written and any other facts that I can include on a page for him. As for the two character pages for deletion, the characters appear in six novels, three unwritten yet. Would it be better to include all characters on a single page? I am only trying to meet the standards for character articles set by Wikiproject Novels. I do not take responsibility for the Rathina page. I intended to work on it eventually, but I am still working on Eden. --TParis00ap (talk) 00:39, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fictional characters-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Received the message about the author. In that case, I won't build a page for him. There is not enough third party information to create such an article. From what I understand, he uses several aliases, but I cannot verify it. In any case, I still think this article should stay. Not that I use this as an excuse, but there is no other information about this novel or it's characters elsewhere. And while that point may be mute, consider that I created the page because I was looking for that information without the need to search the book for the bits and peices I needed. If there are others out there like me that are interrested in this information, than the information does indeed hold value. Perhaps an entire page should not be dedicated to one character, but would a single page with all the characters be a better solution? Or would putting the information on this character on the book page be more prudent? What's worthless to one person could be worthwhile to another. And I am sure this argument is like beating a dead horse, but I spent a lot of time on it. Thanks. --TParis00ap (talk) 23:11, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sorry, TParis00ap, but you made the point yourself when you said you could not find enough third party information or other sources. That means its nonnotable and has only trivial coverage at best (this article has none currently). Maybe use some of this information in an article about the book itself, not as a separate article. --Banime (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The book, The Faerie Path seems to have a review in PW, but the WP article seems a copypaste; I would advise the ed. to try top instead write one good article on the author, which can larger be expanded if the books prove to be best sellers. A separate article on a character in children's fiction is justifiable only for principal characters of the most important prize-winning novels, not as a matter of course. Otherwise, I doubt anyone would even use the name as a search term unless they knew the book. DGG (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so if I gather all ya'alls opinions, your feel I should expand about The Faerie Path article to include more information about Tania but not the entire Tania article? Thus fullfilling reading interests without creating an entirely seperate page for Tania? What about a Character page that included all the characters from the series? Could I do that or must I compact it all onto one page?--TParis00ap (talk) 23:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to create a character list-article before the main article has gotten too long because of real-world information (i.e. not directly-plot-related information). This makes sure that every information gets due weight. – sgeureka ^t•c 19:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough, do as you must. I'll work on modifying the main article. --TParis00ap (talk) 02:18, 25 September 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. and not likely any to come. It's already been re-listed once, and !votes and their arguments remain roughly evenly split. While the article would benefit from some work, that's a matter for editing and not deletion. TravellingCari 03:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Youngren[edit]

Non-notable evangelist, the article has been tagged as orphaned since 2006, no reliable sources. There is one hit on Google news for this name, but it's a passing mention on a sports page about his son-in-law. This might qualify as a reliable source, but he's really just the minister at a non-notable church. Corvus cornix_talk 01:30, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally fails notability in every way. no sources. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the otter chorus. Blaxthos ( t / c ) 03:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Folks, if you're going to use Google News to search for sources you need to not just search over the past month. He's gotten coverage in the Washington Post, Inter Press Service, India Abroad, and the New York Times. Granted, the article needs a lot of work. --Samuel J. Howard (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:32, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Samuel J. Howard. Seems notable enough. I've added the references to the article. JASpencer (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of claims involving big numbers, all totally unreferenced. Nothing notable has been demonstrated. WWGB (talk) 13:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the numbers are correct, he is certainly notable. The only problem appears to be that (like many others) the article is unreferenced (or indaequately referenced), as well as orphaned. Improve Peterkingiron (talk) 14:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What numbers? Corvus cornix_talk 05:01, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is still unsourced, topic seems non-notable with trivial coverage. --Banime (talk) 00:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep evidently notable. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:43, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Banime (talk · contribs), some minor coverage and a few minor mentions but no real significant discussion. Cirt (talk) 00:32, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Close call. I ended up with the same articles Samuel J. Howard listed, but I don't think they add up to the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources required by WP:BIO. --Amalthea^Talk 01:04, 26 September 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. Black Kite 23:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guntz[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 23:35, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable, no nontrivial coverage by reliable third parties. Lacks many references and only has gamefaqs links. --Banime (talk) 00:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — original research does not pay. Sources given are either not considered verifiable sources, tell nothing, or are dead links.
Note — I would also consider looking at Klonoa for AfD, as well, since that article is basically the same in problems as this. MuZemike (talk) 01:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 01:26, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no notability here. Eusebeus (talk) 17:22, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Making an appropriate article for the purpose of this and related characters--there does not seem to be a combined list of characters for the series, or even a general article on the series, just on the individual games. This would be, as usual, the way to handle relatively minor characters. This is just one of the antagonists, if I understand correctly. DGG (talk) 04:39, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary, game guide, and in-universe material. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 06:51, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. non notable because there are no reliable third-party sources that cover the subject. Randomran (talk) 20:24, 25 September 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 Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) . No independent notability. Black Kite 23:51, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Supreme Grand Master Azrael[edit]

This character does not establish notability independent of its series. Without coverage in reliable third party sources, it is just made up of unnecessary plot summary and original research. TTN (talk) 23:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ no independent reliable sources, not notable, likely fancruft DoubleBlue (Talk) 00:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Warhammer 40000 per MuZemike. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DoubleBlue, no reliable sources and nonnotable. --Banime (talk) 00:50, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Was he Gargamel's cat in The Smurfs? Mandsford (talk) 01:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Redirect to ~~Warhammer 40000~~Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000) per WP:NOT#OR as well as lacking significant coverage in verifiable, third-party sources. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note — Changed redirection based on the below's recommendation. It does seem to make more sense while looking at that article. Also changed to a weak redirect as seeing someone search for this term is very unlikely. MuZemike (talk) 07:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletions. MuZemike (talk) 01:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as original research and plot recapitulation of a non-notable fictional subject. You can add a redirect or not. It doesn't seem to be a likely search term, but you might as well. If you do redirect, the target should be to Space Marines (Warhammer 40,000), not Warhammer 40,000. Protonk (talk) 04:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to say to merge into list of minor Warhammer 40,000 characters, but such an article doesn't exist. It might be a good start to getting rid of some of the most ridiculously crufty articles. No notability outside the universe, and I'm not even sure it has much notability inside it either. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 20:51, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into an appropriate article for the minor characters, making one if necessary--or if relevant, finding one to undelete--I have not kept track of the large number of uncoordinated deletions. This should be the usual way of dealing with these characters. DGG (talk) 04:41, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:ADHOM. MuZemike (talk) 06:50, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - How is that relevant to DGG's comment? GlassCobra 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Seems like more of an argument against the nom rather than for or against the article, but I admit to stretching it out a bit. MuZemike (talk) 15:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Game-related deletion discussions. —--Craw-daddy | T | 07:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to an appropriate List of... or the main Warhammer article. Do not merge as content is in-universe plot/trivia. No need to delete unless one of the die-hards sweeps through reverts the redirect. --EEMIV (talk) 14:27, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per DGG. GlassCobra 15:01, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Plot summary and fictional detail just like the rest of the Warhammercuft that's been in AFD lately. No evidence of notability via substantial coverage in independent sources. I don't see this being a likely search term so a redirect is unnecessary. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 21:22, 25 September 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.