Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2009 December 13

< 12 December	14 December >

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 keep. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:13, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer F. M. Horne[edit]

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

Non-notable scientist. Had a few published works but fails WP:PROF in my opinion. Article is written like an obituary. Drdisque (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC) ~~:: i don't debate with exclusionists. Delete it!!! --Melly42 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep. The article about her in Journal of East African Natural History is sufficient to establish notability. -- Eastmain (talk) 00:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Journal's website suggests that it has no full-time writing or editorial staff and instead relies on and in fact solicits submissions, requesting $6.50 USD/5€ per page for publication. In my opinion this would disqualify it as any sort of notable publication. -Drdisque (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most journals have publication fees, but that does not make them vanity press. As long as there is a peer-review process it is unlikely to be vanity - especially when journals are considered rather than books http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020105 Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

of course keep: Jennifer Horne might not be notable for her writing but for almost 40 years of field and conservation work in Kenya (in particular for her sound recordings of birds and monkeys in Kenya) and her husband Lester L. Short (who is a very notable ornithologist) did a lot of his notable work (e.g. the rediscovery of the Cuban Ivory Billed Woodpecker in 1986 or the research study of the Honeyguides in Africa) together with his wife. --Melly42 (talk) 07:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If she's so notable then surely there's been something written about her in something other than a vanity press, right? -Drdisque (talk) 17:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable ornithologist and author of "Toucans, Barbets and Honeyguides" ISBN 0198546661 Shyamal (talk) 08:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is that book notable as to meet WP:AUTHOR? -Drdisque (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A taxonomic monograph published by a reasonably respectable organization (Oxford University Press) and being the author of a landmark publication, "Handbook of the Birds of the World" volume would suggest that the author cannot be easily disregarded. Unfortunately citation indexes do not have impact factors for books so there may be no magic number that indicates notability or lack of it. Shyamal (talk) 02:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, per above keep votes. Sabine's Sunbird talk 02:36, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; work in HBW alone sufficient evidence of notability. Maias (talk) 11:31, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep needs clean-up, but obviously notable Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:03, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per above keep votes - major author on several genera. Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:44, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. JForget 14:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban mafia[edit]

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

Delete while there were Cuban-American criminal organizations that operated in South Florida in the 70s/80s that imported cocaine through Miami I am unaware of a formally structured "Cuban mafia" which referred to itself as such. The article makes no citations whatsoever to establish the existence of such an organization and the only specific group it makes mention of is a criminal organization know as "The Corporation". After googling I found this Reuters article that mentions the organization and uses the name "Cuban mafia" in quotations as to imply that it is the source using that name to make a comparison to the actual mafia. If someone can explain to me why this merits an article I will gladly withdraw my deletion rationale but so far this seems to be a non-notable "organization" and there is nothing in the article to convince me otherwise.--Jersey Devil (talk) 22:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that this concept or organization even exists. Article is pure assertion with no sources or verification. Google finds nothing authoritative. --MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelaniieN[reply]
Delete For the reasons given by MelanieN. Mah favourite (talk) 01:53, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Gbooks hits show that while these criminals may not refer to themselves by this name, it is a term frequently used by outsiders. Edward321 (talk) 00:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The American Outlaws[edit]

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

I just declined an A7 speedy on this article about an unnofficial supporter's group for the US soccer team however I am really not convinced that it meets WP:ORG so am bringing it here for the community to decide. The cites in the article are either primary or from blogs & I have struggled to find any WP:RS to back them up. To place the club in context it appears that there are several supporters clubs for the team, the most prominent being Sam's Army & even that is of questionable note. Nancy ^talk 13:25, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been some other references added, one of which is from ESPN.com. I feel that this article should definitely not be deleted. There have been mentions of American Outlaws in many credible 3rd party sources and even during live tv broadcasts of soccer games (not sure how I would go about citing that). Franharrington (talk) 17:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another link from a 3rd party page referencing The American Outlaws Goal.com. Franharrington (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of RS make it valid. Keep. • Freechild'sup? 13:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 00:17, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the page and the sourcing has been improved. Is this page still a candidate for deletion? Garrett3000 (talk) 20:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see any good reason for this to still be a candidate for deletion. Franharrington (talk) 18:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW (Talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Started local but have expanded [1] Mentioned here, here (although subscription needed) and even in a British newspaper here Polargeo (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No actual arguments made to keep the article by the WP:SPA accounts that voted here (and I do mean "voted"). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Mutize[edit]

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

Non-notable person (he did not invent Six Sigma, although the article makes it sound like it). I can find only a handful of stub business-profile type references. Glenfarclas (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC). Update: also note that the "anonymous" IP that has continued working on Joshua Mutize has both removed the AfD template from it, and blanked this page.[reply]

Delete, weak claims to notabilty. His best chance at notability is being a magzine editor, but the magazine itself doesn't appear to be notable. Hairhorn (talk) 22:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Article Recommended, I agree with Hairhorn. His best chance at notability is as magazine editor, as first black editor. Why should we deny the first black editor his proper notation in the american journalism? (Madisonsmoke (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 01:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC). — Madisonsmoke (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Non-notable editor of a non-notable magazine. Google finds very little information on either the person or the magazine. The article's references are to general information sites and do not mention him at all. --MelanieN (talk) 04:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
DO NOT DELETEArticle seem conforming to Wikipedia requirements. ARTICLE RECOMMENDED (JohnMcCormickjr (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 15:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC). — JohnMcCormickjr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Another sockpuppet vote? Sheesh. Hairhorn (talk) 21:12, 15 December 2009 (UTC)::*No Need for personal attacks, Hairhorn.See WikiPolicies(JohnMcCormickjr (talk)).For guide in good discussion, see WP:ATA(TurnWild (talk))[reply]

I don't consider pointing out sock/SPA votes a personal attack. There are a number of keep votes in here from brand new accounts, including your own. Hairhorn (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject does not seem to be discussed in any reliable third party sources. Mah favourite (talk) 02:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO, and no decent sources can be found, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 10:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Article meets Wiki policies.WP:ATA There is plenty of third party material on this subject. (Tagboard (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 19 December 2009 (UTC). . — Tagboard (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
KEEP,Do Not DeleteWP:ATA Article confirms to Wiki guidelines and policies. well referenced and good third party sources (TurnWild (talk)). — TurnWild (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. .

Comment, WP:ATA is an article listing arguments that are best avoided in deletion discussions, I don't understand how you can use anything on that page to justify keeping an article (in fact one of the things that the page warns against is quoting links without any explanation of how you feel they are relevant in a particular case). Although there are plenty of third party sources in the article I do not see how they show that the subject is notable. The sources are all used to verify facts rather than to show notability. For the purposes of notability the sources need to discuss the subject. Please could you indicate which of the sources you believe confirm the subject's notability. As I say, I do not think that any of them do. Mah favourite (talk) 20:33, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, WP:ATA I disagree, subject is being discussed enough in other third part sources. Subject article is notable and consistent with other numerous articles already on wiki. From article history,I see that this article has received a tremendous amount of editing by other editors,and has improved from the original author.Do Not Delete!(Tagboard (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment, you have linked to WP:ATA again but I do not understand which part you think is relevant, please elaborate. Also, as I said before I would be interested to know exactly which sources you think are suitable to show notability.

Delete I can't find anything much either. Peridon (talk) 22:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Subject is notable and verifiable through third party sources. Article is well referenced and nuetral.I agree that subject is not too famous, but's not the point, there is enough information to establish notability per Wiki guidelines.(Lovewriting (talk)) —Preceding undated comment added 22:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC). — Lovewriting (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment: Sorry, there isn't. He's a copy editor, but that's just a person who corrects copy for mistakes. He's a surveyor, but he hasn't surveyed anything notable and isn't well known in the field. All your claims about his parentage are unsourced, and your math is off: if he was born in 1969, his 21st birthday was not in 1991. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article" Subject is evidently notable.Do not delete this article. (Globalelement (talk))5:12pm,19 December 2009 — Globalelement (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Comment, As some friendly advice to the keep voters in this discussion, do you realise that anyone can click on your username and see when your account was created and all of the contributions that you have made? And also that the closing editor of this AfD is unlikely to take much notice of brand new accounts created sequentially on the same day and then used solely to edit the article and comment in this debate? So you might want to stop wasting your time. And maybe read WP:SOCK. Mah favourite (talk) 00:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone whose account is new? Wiki is a public colloborative environment, and everyone has a freedom to comment whether new or old. What matters is to keep this discussion as health and fair as possible. Your comments as well as 'Hairhorn' seem to be trying to intimidate contributors as brand new accounts and thats accusation is not a health debate. Its not about winning votes, its about an article's facts. (Globalelement (talk))6:24pm, December 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 00:25, 20 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I am not saying that any valid user should not be allowed to comment (I have not been editing wikipedia for long myself). However using sockpuppets to comment in debates is not allowed and can lead to the user being blocked from wikipedia. What I am saying, in case I did not make it clear, is that the new single purpose accounts that have been voting keep in this debate are so obviously sockpuppets that it is quite amusing that you think there is any chance that no one will notice. Sorry for not assuming good faith, if you can explain how a series of brand new users all happened to create accounts one after the other on the same day and then chose solely to edit this article and comment in this AfD discussion supporting the same point of view then I will retract my accusation. I haven't reported this because I don't know how to and it is so laughably obvious in this case that it doesn't seem worth the effort. Mah favourite (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedily deleted. TN X Man 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hill view incident[edit]

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

Although the article makes this sound notable, the only Google hit (now) for "Hill view incident" is this article. So the monicker is made up. And checking around, I can't find any indication that this ever happened, let alone that it is notable (e.g., "hill view" murders at Google News, "hill view" reading CCTV at Google). Glenfarclas (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I applied too much good faith when I tagged the article for work, I can't find a single source. Thedarxide (talk) 20:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nor can I find any sources. This seems to be the premise for a cheap fictional murder mystery. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Created by an apparent single-purpose account; this has also been speedy deleted once under Hill View incident.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Hoax. Joe Chill (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
G3 tag applied. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hatcher-Murphy Disorder[edit]

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

Article on a medical condition that a single doctor claims to have discovered, and formulated a treatment for. I originally speedily deleted the article as advertising, because it was full of language promoting this doctor's practice and his treatment for the condition. As recreated, the article is less spammy, but now it seems to (1) desribe original research, in violation of WP:NOR, and (2) lack any reliable independent sources, in violation of WP:V. NawlinWiki (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. HMD seems to be one "whole health" doctor's made-up theory. That in and of itself isn't particularly relevant, but my searching shows that this doesn't pass WP:GNG. I certainly can't find independent sources. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Nothing about this alleged syndrome can be found in PubMed, the definitive medical search tool. Well, that's probably because the inventor of the disorder is a chiropractor. However, nothing turns up at chiroindex.org either; apparently the guy has never published his idea in a peer-reviewed journal. The article claims his theory "refutes the current medical paradigm" for frozen shoulder syndrome and applies a "novel chiropractic adjustment". Talk about WP:OR original research! Also totally flunks the WP:RS reliable source test: he supplies 20 supposed references, but two are Wikipedia pages and all the others are from OTZ which is his own proprietary website. --MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Additional comment if the decision is to delete: Considering that this is the second go-round for this article, and considering the comments here indicating that this "disorder" is not generally recognized in the field, might you consider salting it as well as deleting it? Just a thought. --MelanieN (talk) 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No precedent in literature, not recognised. JFW | T@lk 00:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable, self-published source.Novangelis (talk) 03:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows no sources that use this term. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. already deleted by User:NuclearWarfare JForget 15:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Northeastern Theological Seminary[edit]

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

Likely hoax. I can find no source that even attests that this institution exists. The article states that it was closed in 2007 after a lawsuit by a former Pennsylvania state senator. If that were true, then it would have been national news. But, there's not a single reference anywhere about anything about this school. See also Christopher Hughes (politician), which is a related hoax by the author. Blargh29 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - regardless of whether it is a hoax, there are insufficient sources to create a reliable article. As you say, were the details in the article correct, there should be significant coverage. Apparent online sources refer to an institute in Shenyang, and confusion with the Northwestern Theological Seminary or the Northeastern Seminary on the campus of Roberts Wesleyan College. This archive of EdRef listings of degree-awarding religious bodies in Pennsylvania, from 2006, covering even tiny institutions, does not mention this one. Just one article suggests it may not be a complete hoax - Google News Archive turns up a 2005 article in the Philadelphia Daily News, sadly behind a paywall, stating that Bishop Elwin Urquhart studied there. Warofdreams talk 01:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Example: the school was supposedly founded by "Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor and other classmates from Dallas Theological Seminary", but Dr. Kenneth N. Taylor did not attend Dallas Theological Seminary according to the Taylor wikilink. And the supposed atheist senator who supposedly forced the school to shut down does not exist (see next AfD nomination). --MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Not suitable for speedy deletion: "only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion". If that was the case here, there would have been no need for research into it. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Warofdreams and WP:V. Even if not a hoax, I can not verify its (past?) existence from some Internet searches. False friends on Google. Nothing on Google scholar, images, maps, etc. Bearian (talk)

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

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

The result was delete. NW (Talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Hughes (politician)[edit]

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

Likely hoax. The subject never existed. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have been elected to the Pennsylvania State Senate in 2002, but the official election results show no such individual. Senator Hughes was supposed to have sponsored Senate Bill, Act 2005-174 to ban certain religious training colleges; but the real Senate Bill 174 in 2005 was an amendment to the Vehicle Code by Senator Jake Corman. Senator Christopher Hughes was supposed to have filed a suit in Pennsylvania Superior Court #PA-1472-A-07-10-05, but a docket search at Superior Court website reveals no such thing. Gentlemen, we have a well-written hoax on our hands. Blargh29 (talk) 20:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See also Northeastern Theological Seminary, which is a related hoax by the author.--Blargh29 (talk) 20:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as hoax. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hoax. I think it will fail G3, but somebody could try it. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - details in article are clearly a hoax, given that some can be and have been checked by Blargh29. They do not appear to be based on any particular real person. Not suitable for G3 - it is not a blatant hoax, but a well-written and apparently plausible one. Warofdreams talk 03:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Blatant hoax. Totally disproven by Blargh29's excellent research.The paired article about the seminary is also clearly a hoax. --MelanieN (talk) 04:37, 14 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

Not suitable for speedy deletion: "only in extreme cases of blatant and obvious hoaxes should articles be tagged for speedy deletion". If that was the case here, there would have been no need for research into it. Warofdreams talk 14:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Then it looks like a good reason to use WP:IAR because there is no good reason to keep a hoax in AFD. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V. Again, this can't be verified by several Internet searches, but may consist of wishful thinking mixed with false claims. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep, non admin closure. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Elise[edit]

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

Non-Notable I20984353 (talk) 19:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep - she has a long and notable television and film career. Hard to stick to the assumption that this nom is in good faith. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - obviously notable.Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn as a duplicate deletion discussion by nominator. (Non-admin closure) Shirik (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No Ten Dollars Ride[edit]

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

Non-notable 10-minute short film. I can't find any remotely verifiable info on this; does not meet WP:MOVIE. See also the related AfD discussions for the director and the production company. Glenfarclas (talk) 19:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is already an open deletion discussion for this film. However the article never got tagged with the template, so I opened this in error. Sorry-- Glenfarclas (talk) 19:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nicoye Banks[edit]

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

With but minor roles in a few (albeit "notable") films and a role of uncertain scope on "One Life to Live", the subject fails to meet the notability requirement set forth at Wikipedia:Bio#Entertainers. NB - the page was created by the subject's personal manager and many, if not most, of Google hits relating to the subject can be traced back to PR efforts rather than reliable 3d party coverage. JohnInDC (talk) 19:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Most of the information I can find is obvious PR puff, e.g. claiming he "co-starred" in things where he had a minor role. And IMDb doesn't show that he was ever in One Life to Live. Also, he tweets in block capitals; that's never a plus. Seriously though, he may make it big in the future, but so far he hasn't had the "significant roles" or "large fan base" we're looking for. --Glenfarclas (talk) 19:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep OBJECT to DELETION; —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the average reasonable person can look at Nicoye Banks' credits and judge for his/herself. If one performs a Google search for "Nicoye Banks" (s)he would find this result: http://www.google.com/search?q=nicoye+banks&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Contrary to the above stated assertion, by "Glenfarclas," that "most of the information [found] is obvious pr puff," the Google search reflects a long list (35 + pages) of third-party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks credits., including IMDB, and other blogs, internet magazines, etc. where interviews and celebrity photos can be found. There can be no question that Nicoye Banks has had, and continues to have, "significant," roles in movies and stage performances. Two more feature films are scheduled for release in March of 2010. Green Zone - (http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1072565/news) with Matt Damon. Notice the IMDB link clearly states that "The film stars Matt Damon, Jason Isaacs, Greg Kinnear, Amy Ryan, Antoni Corone and Nicoye Banks. . . . " AND 2. Brooklyn's Finest where Nicoye Banks plays a supporting role.

I could go on, but it doesn't seem necessary. However, what would help anyone, including myself, in his/her judgment of this particular submission would be an actual definition for the words "significant" and "notable." - Taken from the following " Actors, comedians, opinion makers, models, and television personalities:

1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.

The word "multiple" seems clear as the word is generally understood to mean more than 1.

Please Note: I am the management representative for Nicoye Banks. Unlike many editors on Wikipedia, I do not hide the fact that I may be affiliated in some way with the person/thing being mentioned, rather, I unabashedly disclose my affiliation, because any information I provide is factual and credible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 20:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Precious few of those Google hits to blogs, fansites and the like reflect coverage by the kind of notable and reliable sources that imply notability. What's more, if you follow a few of the links you'll find that either 1) their coverage is trivial - a listing or a mention in passing; or 2) they seem to derive from the same source (namely, Banks's publicists). I credit them for doing their job well, but good promo work doesn't confer notability. Banks may have some meatier roles coming, but roles in the yet-to-be-released films cannot sensibly be evaluated until the films are actually released. JohnInDC (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - - - I welcome and appreciate the challenges to Nicoye Banks' qualifications for Wikipedia inclusion, however, overall, this is becoming laughable. There is clearly more information to support the fact that Nicoye Banks meets the stated requirements for Entertainers to have a Wikipedia article than the scant proposed assertions otherwise. Other individuals, and I, are still waiting for the definitions of the words "significant" and "notable." I think it's easy to see the 3rd party sites that acknowledge Nicoye Banks' credits. Notice the 2 individuals so vehemently opposed to the article on Nicoye Banks can not challenge the validity or existence of 35+ pages of results for the Google search "Nicoye Banks." (let me assure you that NO ONE has 35+ pages worth of Google search results if that person is not doing "notable" things on "multiple" occasions). "JohnInDc" and "Glenfarclas" would rather attempt to discredit the 3rd party sources. . . .35+ pages worth. . . . by stating that "they seem to derive from the same source (namely Blanks' publicists)." While language for a few articles (less than 1 page worth) may have originated with Nicoye Banks' publicists (what "noteworthy" actor doesn't have a publicist? which further underscores my point), I feel confident stating that upwards of 95% of those sites' information is provided by 3rd party sources not affiliated with Nicoye Banks. (i.e. film studios, producers, production company/studio public relations, individual investigation).

"JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" campaign to delete the article on Nicoye Banks could be better appreciated if we knew these individuals' role and/or connection with the Wikipedia site. Furthermore, it would help if we understood "JohnInDc'" and "Glenfarclas'" individual and/or collective definition of the words "significant" and "notable." And finally, these individuals' comments could have more credibility if either one could give more personal knowledge to back up their claims. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Raymbala (talk • contribs) 00:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC) --Raymbala (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: just to be clear, having hits on places like IMDb confirms that someone exists, not that he is necessarily notable. IMDb catalogues pretty much everybody who has ever contributed in any way to any film or TV show, no matter how minor. And while I can't speak for JohnInDC, I'm doing my best to follow the definition of "notable" given at WP:N and all the subsidiary guidelines like WP:ENTERTAINER. --Glenfarclas (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any sources that disucss the subject's work. The source quoted in the article just confirms that he will be in a film. If sources can be produced that actually discuss his work as an actor then I would be prepared to reconsider but at the moment he doesn't meet wikipedia's notability guidelines in my opinion. Mah favourite (talk) 02:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G3. (Non-admin closure, Deleted by User:SchuminWeb.) Shirik (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ghosting (international sport)[edit]

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

WP:MADEUP Highest Heights (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Was it really "made famous by Hamish Blake and Andy Lee"? Polarpanda (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Inna Gilmore[edit]

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

Absolutely no sources can be found for this individual, with the exception of their self-published promotional website. SnottyWong talk 18:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:MUSIC. Joe Chill (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 22:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Has she released any albums? Badagnani (talk) 01:07, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If there was substantial coverage of her accomplishments, it wouldn't be difficult to find out. SnottyWong talk 02:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - That was not the question. Badagnani (talk) 03:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm really sorry but the subject just doesn't seem notable.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 04:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gaelcon[edit]

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

Article does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I cannot find significant coverage, and Google news doesn't make any mention of it. Shirik (talk) 18:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:N. Joe Chill (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not meet the general notability guideline. ~YellowFives 01:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One Shot (JLS song)[edit]

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

This article appears to violate; WP:NSONGS, WP:CRYSTAL, WP:GNG, WP:RS. WossOccurring (talk) 18:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL --Shirik (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Gongshow ^Talk 21:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. Looks like it could go under A9. smithers - talk - sign! 23:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. The coverage I'm finding essentially amounts to "'One Shot' is the next single, due out in February." Per WP:NSONGS, "A separate article on a song is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article." There's not enough "detail" at this point, though that could very well change once it's released. Gongshow ^Talk 23:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While this does not qualify as an A9 (the band does have an article), I still don't think we need an article on the song until it has been released and received significant coverage. TN X Man 00:28, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars: Legends[edit]

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

A complete non-product. Speculative connection to actual game. No actual game publisher has said, "Hey, this is an actual thing we're making." --EEMIV (talk) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Violation of WP:CRYSTAL. --Shirik (talk) 18:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with LucasArts(?). The fact that it's been submitted to OFLC for a rating (and got one) would imply that there's something going on (unless what I understand of rating processes is totally wrong). Unless The Force Unleashed is far further in production than believed, I'd speculate that it's an actual game (yes, I'm aware I used the word "speculate"). However, as of right now, it looks like something The PC Gamer Spy would write. So, until further confirmation appears, I believe it better to merge to a relevant page on Star Wars games and delete this page. Then, when more information is available, either delete all mention of it or recreate this page when it is considered notable again (depending on the information released). --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Title not announced by the publisher. Does not exist. IT IS AN HOOOOAX. --SkyWalker (talk) 13:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Err... how can it be a hoax if it's got a rating? I really don't think OFLC would waste their time going "Hehe! Watch the internet cretins scurry about for information!" It may not be notable, but I seriously doubt it's a hoax. --Thejadefalcon ^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 13:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Hmm. I still think "Delete" is in order. Alright it may not be hoax but there is no press or anything information from the publisher. Article can be created anytime. So it can be created once it is totally confirmed. --SkyWalker (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - When more information comes out the article can be rebuilt, but one OFLC merely points out that it will exist. It doesn't establish notability. --Teancum (talk) 15:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nick Montana[edit]

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

No present and individual notability. Being the son of a notable person is not sufficient. -- Mufka ^(u) ^(t) ^(c) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Notability is not inherited. Joe Chill (talk) 17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per CSD criterion A7. No assertion of individual notability (except that of relationship to Joe Montana, which is an invalid claim. Shirik (talk) 17:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:N, WP:ATHLETE, and WP:BLP. No significant coverage and half the article seems to be about who his teammates and famous father are. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allen Academy[edit]

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

Unnotable private school. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Prod removed with note of "Contest WP:PROD - deletion of high school articles is controversial, so shouldn't be done without discussion." Per Wikipedia policy nothing is "inherently notable" nor is anything notable without actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources which this school does not have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:35, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would note that I am sure that the nominator, whatever her own opinions about "inherent notability", knows full well that deletion of articles about high schools is controversial, which disqualifies them from deletion via WP:PROD. These searches eliminate most of the false positives found by the automatically generated ones above: Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL. I would invite the nominator to look through the 647 books and 383 news articles found and then explain how this doesn't have "actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources". Phil Bridger (talk) 18:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of articles about high schools is only controversial to the handful of people who continue to falsely claim they are inherently notable. That does not disqualify them for prodding, as disputing a prod on a single article is done per article, not some random made up thing. I'd also invite the Phil to show that the claimed sources are actually about THIS specific Allen Academy and not any of the many other schools of the same name. Further, please remember that Google web results are not notable. A bunch of local news articles about the sports scores is not significant coverage nor does it incur notability. Listings in directories are not significant coverage. One of the book's is a brief mention from the late 1800s noting its existence is from the Texas Department of Education. The rest are side mentions. Again, please actually point to specific, significant coverage rather than trying to claim "look, I see lots of results on Google but didn't actually look at any of them" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's please try to keep this AfD on-topic. This discussion is more suited for the already-open discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (organizations and companies)#All High Schools Notable? GUIDELINE DEBATE. This AfD discussion is for discussing the potential for deletion of this article and is not to be generalized to all schools. Shirik (talk) 19:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did look at the sources. Did you? And I provided links to searches that restrict them to this Allen Academy. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Phil Bridger's sources. this find is of particular interest. --Shirik (talk) 19:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Point of order I would like to identify that I may have a conflict of interest on this deletion debate as a user who has participated in the guideline discussion referenced above advocating the strong likelihood, but not inherent notability of high schools. I ask the closer to consider this conflict of interest when weighing my !vote. --Shirik (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is a mention in an image caption a sign of notability? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that an independent, historical guide contains content about this school implies there is some relevance to this school to me. How deep that goes requires further investigation, but there is evidence to warrant further looking. Not to mention I don't believe that is an image caption, though I could be wrong. --Shirik (talk) 19:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school, long history, sources are available. TerriersFan (talk) 19:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 19:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All high schools are notable. I added some references, which should demonstrate notability even to those who disagree with the inherent notability of high schools. It would be helpful if nominators would search for references before nominating articles for deletion. - Eastmain (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: per Phil Bridger's sources. - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Cirt (talk) 09:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Calvary Baptist Academy, New Braunfels, Texas[edit]

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

Unnotable private school. Fails WP:N and WP:ORG. Prod removed with note of "deprodding because it purports to go through 12th grade, and all high schools are generally deemed notable." however per Wikipedia policy nothing is "inherently notable" nor is anything notable without actual significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources which this school does not have. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I cannot find significant coverage for this school. --Shirik (talk) 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Changed to Keep based on the sources found by TerriersFan which I did not see. --Shirik (talk) 19:01, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - contains a high school and sources are available including a House of Representatives commendation for their soccer team, here. TerriersFan (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —TerriersFan (talk) 20:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Education and WP:SCHOOLS (essay/failed guideline). Other recent examples of keeps of high school AfDs per these guides, e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BEST High School (Kirkland, Washington), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Summit School (Queens, New York) (3rd nomination). I deprodded this one.--Milowent (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per common outcomes and my own standards for private high schools - it has 70 students, it has at least 10th through 12th grades, it has been in existence for 2 academic years, has a diploma, and has staff of 7 (who presumably have Bachelors' degrees and are paid). However, I don't see where it is Accredited , or has notable alumni, or has notable academic programs, major annual events, or scholastic sports, so I'd go for the "weak" keep. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Calfano[edit]

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

This is an unsourced article on a young academic with no evidence of notability per WP:BIO or WP:PROF freshacconci talktalk 17:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —freshacconci talktalk 17:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No sign of passing WP:PROF yet; as so often happens here, the article was created too early in his career. I found a news article about some poll that he's involved in, but it's small and local; there were also a few other Google news hits where he is quoted, but I think his mainstream media presence is also far below the level that would pass WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Has not achieved notability. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Well-argued by David Eppstein. Respectfully, Agricola44 (talk) 16:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Yorkshire Terrier. Let's keep it civil, guys. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biewer Terrier[edit]

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

This article is about a non-notable breed, a long haired variant of the Yorkshire Terrier. The article is completey un-encyclopaedic in tone, full of fan cruft and weasel words and appears to be promotional of the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc. Two "references" have been provided, one is a passing mention in an apparently self published German book "Die Pflege ihres Hundes: Band 2 Haaranlagen und Pflegebeispiele" which says that the breed is not recognised by official bodies. The other reference is is to the Biewer Terrier Club of America, Inc website and doesn't seem to support the material in the article. I can find no RS to support the notability of this breed. I prodded it and the nomination was supported by two other editors and opposed by one other who removed the tag, citing the references mentioned above. I propose deletion and merging of any useful content to the Yorkshire Terrier article. Jezhotwells (talk) 16:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some made up dog breed by some seemingly disruptable breeder attempting to make it real; as of now, it is just a badly bred version of a Yorkshire that should not be given notability iwth a Wikpiedia article -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thank you for inviting me to this discussion. I don't know what more reliable source there can be for the Biewer Terrier that the co-originator of the breed, Geneticist that have spent 2 years testing and developing a signature for the Biewer Terrier, DogChannel.com which is an online site run by Dog Fancy and Dog World, and Carl Yochum president of the Yorkshire Terrier Club of America who has written an article for showsightonline.com.
I was told my views don't matter, which is fine, but I am an authority on the breed and one of the board members of the BTCA that is in constant contact which Mrs. Biewer. I don't know how much more reliable that can get. I have never posted anything but facts about the breed. I have bred Yorkies for 18 years and researched this breed for six years. I rely on the facts that have been presented, not opinion, not even my own opinion.

As for Collectonian's opinion, am I to assume you know more about the Breed than the president of the YTCA? Please read his article at http://www.showsightonline.com/ Article name: Ramblings from Carl C. Yochum President YTCA.

Or the geneticists working for MARS Veterinary that have broken down 39 chromosomes plus 6 different genes on chromosome 20 and developed a breed signature for the Purebred Biewer Terrier http://www.wisdompanel.com/breedinfo/breedsdetected.html.

What reliable resources are you basing your comments on?

If the truth cannot be posted about the breed, I am all for deleting the page. As soon as UKC or AKC accept the breed, I'll be back to write an article then. Thank You--Zarina1 (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You are using Wikipedia for self promotion of your made up breed and its board; and you clearly are neither neutral nor actually speaking from the standpoint of actual Wikipedia guideline and policy.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I removed the PROD, mainly because a google books seach http://books.google.com/books?q=Biewer+Terrier showed books that covered this breed. "Dogs by Design: How to Find the Right Mixed Breed for You" did match, but didn't have a snippet, and "Die Pflege ihres Hundes: Band 2 Haaranlagen und Pflegebeispiele" (in german) has a snippet. The coverage found is not very impressive, but it is there. If the breed is mentioned in several books, I refuse to believe that it is "some made up dog breed by some seemingly disruptable breeder attempting to make it real". Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Snippets are not significant coverage. The first book is a listing of "cutsy" names for designer mutts (indicating that this is, in fact, not a real breed but another of the made up high priced mutts being marketed these days). Without translation, the German source appears to be nothing more than a one-line mention along the same lines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Once again I am asking Colletonian to produce your credentials on either breed. What are your statements based on? What Wikipedia guidelines and policy are you following with your condescending remarks? You obviously have not read Carl Yochum's article. This is not a made up breed. Read the guidelines for purebred acceptance with AKC and UKC. It's a new breed being developed by all the correct guidelines for new breed acceptance.

You can visit this web site and click on news. This is the association that governs the IABCA here in America. http://www.uci-ev.de/english_site/index_en.htm --Zarina1 (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't need credentials, thanks. Its called common sense and actual research. You threw a high price tag on a mutt and called it a breed yet no one recognizes it as such. Wikipedia is not here to make your mutt notable. Go get actual coverage, not a single article, then maybe the breed will be notable one day, though hopefully not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:10, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a further note, I looked at the Showsight issue pointed to by the original poster. It is an editorial about several breeds and does mention this one, but notes its information came from the "breed"s website and not from personal knowledge and expertise. Wisdom Panel is a commerical product listing various "breeds" without any actual discussion. Again, go finish establishing the mutt and actually get it some notability, and learn some civility while you're at it. Wikipedia does not operate on the basis of future notability, nor does it cater to people proclaiming that they are the only ones with the authority to speak about the breed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that user Collectonian has removed a couple of lengthy comments from other editors arguing to keep this article. The reason given in the edit history is that these comments were uncivil. I am really not sure that this is appropriate behaviour on the part of Collectonian (though I'm sure you thought you were doing the right thing). Firstly, while I agree that some of what was written was not conducive to a civil discussion, I do not think that it was any more uncivil than some of the comments made by Collectonian earlier in the discussion (please look at the edit history to judge for youselves). Secondly, some of what was removed were arguments to keep the article and sources provided by other editors. I suggest that Collectonian should reinsert the deleted comments and that all users involved in this discussion should try to control their emotions and discuss things in a civilised manner. Mah favourite (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The deleted comments were from the same person (the IP was also the same editor who is not allowed to say keep twice), and she has apologized for the uncivil comments. Further, the sources were all the same as listed above, so no sourcing was lost. She is, of course, welcome to repost the remarks without the incivility, but I'd rather she did it herself than having me modify them partially to remove the personal attacks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ I would not disagree that the article is unencyclopedic and full of original research however the breed does seem to satisfy notability as there is lots of coverage of it. If it is kept then I'll have a go at sorting the article out and reducing it down to verifiable material (if no one beats me to it). It seems to me that the controversy about the status of the breed will make quite an interesting article (assuming sources can be found), it just needs to be written in a balanced way. Mah favourite (talk) 03:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please state where this " lots of coverage of it" is? So far all taht has been shown are some very unreliable sources. Jezhotwells (talk) 09:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was going on the amount of related stuff that came up in a quick google search but looking through it I really can't find any reliable third party sources to base an article on. I am withdrawing my vote becasue although I instinctively feel that the topic is notable I cannot find any reliable sources (and I won't be disappointed if the article is deleted as I in no way support the topic). Mah favourite (talk) 16:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yorkshire Terrier. Insufficient substantive appearances in sources for an article. May be worth a mention in Yorkshire Terrier, as a nonstandard color variant of the Yorkie (rather than the article's current characterization of the B.T. as a "breed"). Given the lack of sources and that the article says both breeds are/can be born of the same breed ("Yorkshire Terrier dogs and Biewer Terrier dogs can often be found in the same litter"), I see no evidence that a) this is anything other than a tri-colored Yorkie that should be mentioned in the Yorkie article if anywhere, or b) this is anything notable enough to have its own article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chaoticfluffy (talk • contribs) 17:43, 16 December 2009

Comment I do not believe the Biewer Terrier should be merged with the Yorkshire Terrier information. We have proven that the Biewer Terrier is not a Yorkshire Terrier and a full 14 page, detailed report was given to the president of the YTCA, Carl Yochum proving the difference.

I think if Colletonian wants to be talked to with respect, she/he needs to talk to others with respect. She/He has no knowledge of the breed yet continually calls it a mutt. Her/Him's input is without merit and should not be allowed. She/He is obviously biased for some reason.

I have said the article should be removed if the truth isn't posted. The constant reference to a Yorkshire Terrier throughout the article is ridiculous. We are on the verge of UKC acceptance and when that happens we will come back and write an article then. This is a new breed and there are steps that have to be followed to get it recognized, it doesn't mean that is non notable. If the president of the Yorkshire Terrier club accepts it as a separate breed, then who is collectonian to argue with a man that has an exceptional reputation with the AKC?

I also do not know why the co-originator of the breed would not be considered a reliable source. Why the UCI that governs the IABCA dog shows in America would not be considered reliable. I understand there are many German organizations without merit, but this organization is the head of the only American show venue that issues International titles.

--Zarina1 (talk) 00:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zarina1 (talk • contribs)

I would also like to add that in order to have a breed listed on dogchannel.com it has to have been proven to be a purebred and the Biewer Terrier is listed. --Zarina1 (talk) 01:12, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Yorkshire Terrier. Per above: Insufficient substantive appearances in sources for an article. I can't find hardly any sources for this breed. Ikip (talk) 05:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oy. It's a real breed, we can show that it exists, and the determination of the Yorkshire Terrier Club is of value, but reliable sources are quite thin - too thin for an article, unfortunately. But it's a new breed, so that may change over time. I would recommend that we Merge this article and its sourcing to Yorkshire Terrier, acknowledging that additional sourcing might make a stand-alone article possible. As it stands, this article is premature. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 15:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect - I'm in much agreement with Ultraexactzz. At this time, I think a stand-alone article is premature. For me, I think the acknowledged statement "It is not recognized by any formal or major kennel club" is pretty damning, at the current time. I am unconvinced that the given sources are strong enough to let the article survive on its own. That is not to say, of course, that it will never be suitable for its own article. Additionally, I would like to comment that none of us need to show our credentials when it comes to dogs/dog breeds. Such knowledge is not required. Helpful, sure, but our purpose here is to determine the article's notability based on policy, and I like to think that one of the strengths of this project is that a user doesn't need to have expert-level knowledge of a topic in order to determine its significance or merits for inclusion. Demanding such credentials, or stating that someone is not fit to comment on this discussion due to a lack of such credentials, is probably something I would avoid doing. My apologies for this long comment. Everyone, let's stay civil. Best, Cocytus [»talk«] 17:11, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Bombshells[edit]

The result was Keep Una Smith (talk) 21:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

No sources establish notability. I suggest we delete and/or redirect to Bombshell (disambiguation). --Explodicle (T/C) 15:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a M*A*S*H television episode. Surely there is a better choice if you wish to redirect. In any case, including it on the Bombshell disambiguation page makes sense. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 16:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of M*A*S*H episodes (Season 11).Vulcan's Forge (talk) 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the event someone searches for "Bombshells", it's more likely they're looking for one of the notable topics mentioned in the disambiguation. --Explodicle (T/C) 23:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep just rename it to avoid confusion. I tried to move it to Bombshells_(M*A*S*H) but was told that name was on a blacklist, and to go read another page about how to move it, and then following those instructions, added the tag to the talk page of the article, it now going to do that automatically in seven days apparently. Odd way of doing things. The closing administrator, or any administrator who notices this, could perhaps do it sooner. A notable series, with millions of viewers for this episode. Dream Focus 06:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The problem isn't confusion from the title, it's a lack of sources. The notability of the series and the number of viewers are irrelevant. --Explodicle (T/C) 12:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Bombshells (MASH) and redirect the current title to the dab page. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — Sources establishing notability beyond any doubt do exist; I have just added one to the article. Add some more, and nominate this article for Did You Know. --Una Smith (talk) 20:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That source looks pretty good! Would anyone object to the following compromise?

I speedy close this AfD, since notability has been proven,
Moving the existing content to Bombshells (M*A*S*H),
Redirecting Bombshells to Bombshell (disambiguation), and
Adding Bombshells (M*A*S*H) to Bombshell (disambiguation).

--Explodicle (T/C) 20:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy Delete per A7 by Jimfbleak. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fallout 3 caps glitch[edit]

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

Steaming pile of WP:OR. Wikipedia is not a "how to" site. WuhWuzDat 15:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per nom. SnottyWong talk 18:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 18:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vigneswaran Rajkumar[edit]

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

unremarkable person, speedy removed by sock of page author WuhWuzDat 15:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable person -- Raziman T V (talk) 15:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete A7 and per nom. Creator of page has a similar name, suggesting WP:COI. Creator of page has also removed speedy deletion templates several times, and is currently involved in a sockpuppet investigation. SnottyWong talk 18:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the same reasons. Not a notable person. --Glenfarclas (talk) 20:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The biography of this person is stub.--Rhythm live (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vignesrealm Motion Pictures[edit]

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

unremarkable company, speedy removed by sock of page author WuhWuzDat 15:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unremarkable company -- Raziman T V (talk) 15:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this company. Joe Chill (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete A7 and per nom. Creator of the page has a similar name, suggesting WP:COI. Creator of the page also removed speedy deletion tags from the article several times in a row, and is currently involved in a sockpuppet investigation. SnottyWong talk 18:49, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This information about is a stub--Rhythm live (talk) 01:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)— Rhythm live (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

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}}.

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ove Michaelsen[edit]

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

Non-notable per WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO, no significant coverage online from WP:Reliable sources. MuffledThud (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. —MuffledThud (talk) 11:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence that his books are notable, nor has he toured or recorded music. Bearian (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The search for sources should be under "O.V. Michaelsen," and the alternate (birth name), "Ove Ofteness."

The article has been retitled under the correct name.

Please note the references/footnotes on the page.

A life's work and documented. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ucalegon (talk • contribs) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC) — Ucalegon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Weak delete Few libraries have his books, 75 for all 3 books combined. but G News Archive shows they are occasionally quoted as a reference--getting much the same hits as those listed in the article. . As for the question of whether they are a standard reference, I see that there are a number of considerably more widely held books on about the same subject. [2] [3], [4] [5]. I can;t judge the other aspects of notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete if he had written a notable book it would be a clear keep, but as it is we don't have any real evidence of notability. NBeale (talk) 07:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep His books are notable for their quality of content. He is very well known in a very specialized field of knowledge. Given the narrow specialization of his works, it is notable that they are in 75 libraries. His poetry is frequently published in the Berkeley Daily Planet. He is a well known singer/songwriter in the S.F. Bay area. Has Recorded with Suzy and the Dinosaurs - John Cipollina, Spencer Dryden, Peter Albin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pierre Abelarde (talk • contribs) 18:23, 12 December 2009 (UTC) — Pierre Abelarde (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

There are no references in the article supporting any of these claims: can you provide some please? Also, who are Suzy and the Dinosaurs? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Without response by User:Pierre Abelarde, I cannot verify his claims, and accordingly there is no evidence of notability. A response from him/her with sources may change my !vote. --Shirik (talk) 17:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnotable author that fails WP:AUTHOR, WP:GNG, and without significant coverage in reliable sources there is no way to meet WP:BLP -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep The references are easy to find. Google search on Suzy and the Dinosaurs will give you this link at the top of the page.

http://www.isound.com/suzy_fischer_featuring_the_dinosaurs___john_c/

A search of the Berkeley Daily Planet for Ove Ofteness will give you 18 links. The four below are published poems. This is not a comprehensive list.

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2009-01-08/article/31948?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/issue/2006-06-02/article/24311?headline=Letters-to-the-Editor

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/07-16-09.pdf

http://www.berkeleydailyplanet.com/pdfs/12-18-08.pdf

One would verify the quality of the O.V. Michaelsen's published works by reading them. Notability is not just measured by fame. The seriousness of the work is more consequential. An extreme example of this would be Newton's work on calculus. It was certainly notable even for the many years it wasn't published.

It would seem those proposing deletion are not familiar with the author's work and have made no serious effort to follow up on even the citations listed in the article. The criticism of O.V. Michaelsen's writings in this proposal seem to be frivolous and clearly uniformed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 04:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC) — 67.169.98.95 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment WP:Notability of an author on Wikipedia isn't established on the basis of a subjective assessment by its editors of the "quality" of their work. Were Newton alive today, years before any WP:Reliable sources in the worlds of mathematics and physics had given him the recognition he deserved, he would indeed be ignored by Wikipedia. In fact Wikipedia gets frequent submissions claiming Newton-like breakthroughs that have not yet been granted the recognition due, and insisting that they should be included anyway. It's not the role of Wikipedia to identify high-quality but under-recognized works and declare them notable. It's an attempt to document subjects which are already established to be notable.

You're right to say that notability isn't synonymous with fame: if Michaelsen is notable in the specialized area of lexicology claimed, then please provide verifiable, reliable sources supporting his notability according to Wikipedia's criteria. If you think the criteria agreed in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO are wrong, then the place to argue your case for changing them is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is no argument with the Wikipedia standard of notability. That basically is "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article." As the citations meeting that standard are in the article, clearly the proposal to delete is from another perspective. So comments from other perspectives are valid in the context of this discussion.

It should be noted that the author had works published subsequent to his first book, "Words at Play". This is de facto indication that his work is successful in the market place. That is an objective measure of notability.

It is telling that the impetus for requesting deletion centers around whether the author is "notable in the specialized area of lexicology as claimed" and if his work is a "standard reference". There is no such claim made. It is explicit that the author has many publications in the area of recreational linguistics. His works are primarily entertaining. Due to the extensive supporting notes in the books, they also happen serve a didactic purpose as well. His books and articles are certainly not ponderous, encyclopedic works of linguistic scholarship.

So, the author is being held to an irrelevant standard. The criticism is akin to claiming a family car is a poor vehicle because it doesn't have the passenger capacity of a Greyhound bus. The critiques here are fundamentally straw man arguments.

Finally, the idea that inclusion in Wikipedia is not a subjective assessment by the editors is illusory. These sorts of decisions are fundamentally subjective. That is not a criticism of the process. It is a recognition of the reality of the nature of the decision making process. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 02:47, 15 December 2009 (UTC) — 67.169.98.95 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment - Decisions on inclusion in Wikipedia are made on the basis of an assessment of a subject's notability according to previously-agreed criteria, and not on an assessment of the quality of their work. You wrote:

"One would verify the quality of the O.V. Michaelsen's published works by reading them. Notability is not just measured by fame."

...and I answered,

"WP:Notability of an author on Wikipedia isn't established on the basis of a subjective assessment by its editors of the 'quality' of their work.".

You also wrote:

"The seriousness of the work is more consequential. An extreme example of this would be Newton's work on calculus. It was certainly notable even for the many years it wasn't published."

...but are now arguing that the author's works are primarily entertaining. That's fine: we'll stick to WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO for notability rather than WP:ACADEMIC. How does the author meet the notability criteria in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO? MuffledThud (talk) 09:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - WP:AUTHOR

1. The person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by their peers or successors.

Please see citations listed in the article.

4. The person's work either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums, or had works in many significant libraries

There is no more significant critical attention than market success. Also see documentation of libraries already listed above. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 00:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. He is cited in 3 other books on the subject: in my opinion this does not meet the guideline of "widely cited by their peers": could other editors please comment?

4. We should assume from the context that "significant critical attention" in WP:AUTHOR means just that: attention from critics. ~~I can't find a single critical review of any of his works online~~. WP:AUTHOR is necessarily imprecise on the definition of "many significant libraries": again, for me 75 libraries worldwide for all 3 works does not meet this guideline, but I'll leave it to consensus from other editors. MuffledThud (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:71.142.81.11 has just pointed out on my talk page that Amazon.com's customer review for Words at Play: Quips, Quirks & Oddities contains a quoted critical review from the Aug. 1998 issue of Word Ways: the Journal of Recreational Linguistics by its then editor, as well as praise from some other, unverifiable sources. The quoted review is from an anonymous customer of Amazon, so verification of the review would be useful: they don't maintain an online archive. This still isn't "significant critical attention", but it's a start. MuffledThud (talk) 10:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The assertion that "significant critical attention" should be assumed to mean views of formal critics is unsupportable. Professional critics are notoriusly venal, capricious, and shape their views to meet the demands of their market. The market place at large represents a critical consensus.

A professional critic could easily contend that Michael Jackson's works are musically trite and stultifyingly boring. The critic could even bring musicalogical theory and history to the argument to “objectively” support that claim. Michael Jackson would still be notable.

The comment made regarding "many significant libraries" is admittedly subjective. This is a contradiction to prior assertions to the effect that subjective positions are not valid in this context.

The statement that a critical review in Word Ways: the Journal of Recreational Linguistics isn't "significant critical attention” is also an unsupported subjective judgement.

Since the work is in the genre of recreational linguistics, a postive review in journal that covers this arcane field would seem to be a very significant statement if one is judging by the criteria of professional criticism.

comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Again, if you think the criteria agreed in WP:AUTHOR and WP:MUSICBIO are wrong, then the place to argue your case for changing them is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people). Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please read the comments more carefully. There is no dispute with Wikipedia's criteria. The dispute is with your personal interpretation of those standards. However, that is of no consequence since the article clearly meets your criteria as well as the broader and more substantive understanding of "critic". comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding undated comment added 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment: When information from user 71.142.81.11 were quoted above, significant details were omitted. Below are the complete comments by that user:

“Critical reviews by wordsmiths author Dr. Ross Eckler, magazine editor Ted Clarke, and members of the National Puzzlers' League:

http://www.amazon.com/Words-Play-Quips-Quirks-Oddities/product-reviews/0806997915

Also see Reference No. 1 of the Wikipedia article from The Palindromist magazine:

http://www.realchange.org/pal/authors.htm

71.142.81.11 (talk) 10:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks: that review quote from Word Ways looks good, so I'll post it to the AFD discussion, and let's see what the rest of the editors think. MuffledThud (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

That former editor of Word Ways was Ross Eckler, author of Making the Alphabet Dance. Michaelsen contributed to that major book, and to the book The National Puzzlers' League: The First 115 Years. Another review on that Amazon.com site was by Ted Clarke, editor of Wordsworth magazine in England. For the sake of fairness, please mention the names of those reviewers. Why did you bring up the comments by an anonymous reviewer? You are not giving this a fair shake.

71.142.81.11 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 10:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC). The quoted reviews were posted to the Amazon customer review page by an anonymous customer: "A Customer". Please go ahead and add more detail about the other reviewers at the AFD discussion, if you think they're significant. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 11:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC) “

comment added by Pierre Abelarde —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.98.95 (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please have a read of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry:

"Editors must not use alternate accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. This includes, but is not limited to:

* Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists.

* Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections."

Posting under two IDs in a deletion discussion is not the best way to win support for your argument.

Would admins reviewing this deletion discussion please note investigation at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/67.169.98.95. - MuffledThud (talk) 19:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note User:Pierre Abelarde has been blocked 2 days for sock puppetry via vote-stacking with the IP in the above deletion discussion. MuZemike 21:02, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (X! · talk) · @757 · 17:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Estonia – Sri Lanka relations[edit]

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

neither country has a resident ambassador. and total trade is less than 2 million EUROs between these 2 countries (surely the richest individual Sri Lankans and Estonians invest much more). the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. a complete lack of coverage of any real bilateral relations [6]. 2 of the 3 sources listed in the article are embassy websites. there has been no state visits either. statements such as "Since Estonia’s induction into the European Union in 2004 it has had a positive affect on bilateral relations with Sri Lanka, since the EU is one of Sri Lanka’s biggest donors and trade partners" seem pure synthesis given that trade has actually decreased from pre 2004 levels. LibStar (talk) 13:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - an absurd smattering of trivia. Yes, relations exist, but that's about all that's encyclopedically relevant (as opposed to what happened to be dug up in a Google search during an attempt to build an article around a non-existent topic). Or we can redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia, which deals in table form with this relationship. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep It needs to lose the side-by-side "country comparison". However, I can see the value in a specific breakdown of what one nation imports from, or exports to, the other, along with statistics of the trade between the two. To the extent that there is such information, and it goes beyond what a mention in the FRO articles can be, then I support letting someone expand upon the subject. Mandsford (talk) 02:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - admittedly not the most important pair of country relations, but still there is enough notability and coverage in independent sources to have an article. Pantherskin (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the evidence of significant third party coverage? 2 of the 3 references are embassy websites so not third party. LibStar (talk) 07:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Usually I am for deletion of these "a - b relations", but this one has a bit more content then the usual stubs and some actual references. Definitely won't protest the deletion, though. --Sander Säde 09:46, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have deleted the side by side "country comparison", I only placed it there because articles such as Japan – United States relations, France – United States relations, United Kingdom – United States relations and Sino-American relations had it and thought it would add more information to the article. This article should stay because of the fact that Sri Lanka and Estonia both have bilateral relations with each other, no matter how much there economic relations are worth, and that both countries are seeking to further expand there relations.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:24, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason. you've cited examples that are much much more notable.~~ at least 100 of these bilateral articles have been deleted so they are not automatically notable. LibStar (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, Lib, that wasn't what Blacknight said. He wasn't citing the existence of other articles as a reason for keep, but rather that he had put in a table in his article because he had seen such a table in those other articles had a country-comparison table. The reason urged for keep is that both nations are seeking to further expand their relations, and I think he's making an effort to demonstrate that. Mandsford (talk) 13:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thank you Mandsford that is exactly what I was trying to say.--Blackknight12 (talk) 01:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected, but you still haven't provided evidence of significant third party coverage. LibStar (talk) 01:45, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not as well developed as some of the others, but with a little work, and better formatting, it will be up to par. What was wrong with the side by side comparisons? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see the comparison chart ... too big for such a small article, I am sure there are better ways to format it.--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Again, a handful of minor, and quite staged, events such as visits, and a few statistics of trade concern relations that have existed less than 20 years. No cited overview of relations or their significance on the world stage. Not-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:28, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic.Yilloslime ^T_C 19:21, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't Estonia independent of Sri Lanka, and the other way around? There isn't an entity called "Estonia – Sri Lanka" so the government websites are each independent of the other. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:24, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

best reliable sources of an actual notable relationship would be some third party like a major newspaper. Government press releases almost always say "we want to increase relations/trade/tourism". LibStar (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia editor is the first party, the subject is the second party, I still say that one country is independent of the other country, and is writing objectively. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Richard. This article is on the relations between Sri Lanka and Estonia. The Estonian and Sri Lankan governments are clearly not independent of the topic, just as a band's website is not an independent source of information about that band or its albums or concerts. Could such sources be reliable, and used as references for facts within the article? Sure. But can they be used to demonstrate notability? No. Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia reliable sources "[include] but not limited to newspapers, books and e-books, magazines, television and radio documentaries, reports by government agencies, and scientific journals. In the absence of multiple sources, it must be possible to verify that the source reflects a neutral point of view, is credible and provides sufficient detail for a comprehensive article." --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:22, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whether the websites in question qualify as "reports by government agencies" is doubtful, but regardless you're quoting a piece of the WP:GNGs our of context. Sure, in general, government reports are reliable and can be used to establish notability. But in the specific case of when a government or its actions are the topic of an article, then it's website ceases to be independent. In a nutshell, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Yilloslime ^T_C 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Richard, what does third party mean? you're not fooling us. LibStar (talk) 22:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That says:

1. any party to an incident, case, quarrel, etc., who is incidentally involved.
2. (in a two-party system) a political party formed as a dissenting or independent group from members of one or both of the two prevailing major parties. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There just about seems to be enough in sources 3 and 4 to justify this article. Mah favourite (talk) 03:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

source 3 merely reports the appointment of the ambassador who resides in Sweden not Estonia, given that there are 1000s of ambassadors worldwide I hardly say this adds significantly to proving that there are actual notable relations between these 2 countries. If it was a resident ambassador it would add to notability. Source 4 is the run of the mill "we want to increase trade/tourism/relations" news story without some real commitment like an agreement or funding. LibStar (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per editor Richard Arthur Norton. I will create a tastefull Groubani style locator map for the countries later, as Im currently on my 3G connection which doesnt let me access commons. FeydHuxtable (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The relationship between these two countries is notable. A major news source agrees. [7] Dream Focus 01:47, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article is now well developed due again to rescue by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ). Third party sources have been located proving verifiable existence of relations and demonstrating notability. On a side note, deletion of these "bilateral" relations articles is counterproductive to the aim of Wikipedia to provide a summary of all knowledge. I recommend the creation of an exception to the notability requirement that significant coverage exist for these articles and a restoration of the hundred or so that have been deleted.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 18:57, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just a note to say that I've reviewed RAN58's edits and I still think this topic is far from meeting the WP:GNGs. The article still has only a single independent source[8] (which looks suspiciously like a reprinted government press release, but I digress). GNGs require significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. Yilloslime ^T_C 20:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't. The GNG guideline clearly says "Multiple sources are generally preferred." Preferred does not mean required.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 21:42, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, multiple independent reliable sources exist. See The Colombo Times, The Asian Tribune, The Asian Tribune, and The Estonian Review.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - in my opinion, this relationship seems to (barely) cross the threshold of significant coverage, and weakly merits inclusion. I would not loudly protest a deletion, but I think if I were moved to choose one side, I would go with keep. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:57, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. (X! · talk) · @759 · 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Romania – Sri Lanka relations[edit]

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

neither country has a resident ambassador and the country comparison in the article adds no real value when these figures can be obtained from the country's own article of the CIA World Factbook. most of the third party coverage is multilateral [9]. the level of relations is very minor, the level of bilateral trade is less than USD10M [10], keep in mind some individuals easily spend more than that in 1 country. LibStar (talk) 12:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. -- -SpacemanSpiff 17:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there simply isn't much worth talking about to this relationship. See this, the Romanian Foreign Affairs Ministry's description of relations with Sri Lanka. And no independent sources to discuss the subject. As an alternative, redirect to Foreign relations of Romania (which summarizes the relevant information in the table) or Foreign relations of Sri Lanka. - Biruitorul ^Talk 18:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

might I add that Biruitorul is a Romanian speaker so if he can't find anything...I don't think much exists. LibStar (talk) 23:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I might add that despite his claim that "no independent sources to discuss the subject", the nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship.[11] I'm not impressed.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

where is the significant third party coverage? WP articles do not hinge on this 1 third party source. I'm not impressed about trying to make a real article when significant third party sources do not exist. let's be realistic, not all bilateral articles make the cut. LibStar (talk) 12:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your point was that we should rely on Birutorol's vote because he couldn't find any sources when he could not even find the one you provided?!? Your claim that "WP articles do not hinge on this 1 third party source" is based on what? Not the WP:GNG guidelines. Those say that multiple sources are preferred, not necessary.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unlike Estonia – Sri Lanka relations, I see no real content in this one, nor potential for anything further. Remove the unnecessary "country comparison", and all that's left is a Groubani article. There isn't anything here that isn't already mentioned in other articles. Mandsford (talk) 02:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - there is already some noteworthy information here, and given Ceauşescu's rather active foreign policy more informaton could be added. Pantherskin (talk) 06:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please provide evidence of actual coverage and whether Ceauşescu said anything notable on Sri Lanka or visited Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 07:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

6 days have elapsed and Pantherskin cannot find evidence on Ceauşescu and Sri Lanka. LibStar (talk) 12:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article should stay because of the fact that Sri Lanka and Romania both have bilateral relations with each other and for over 50 years. The only problem is there isn't much information that can be found on this topic because these two countries are an unlikely pair.--Blackknight12 (talk) 22:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

simply having bilateral relations for over 50 years is not a reason for keeping. you even admit there is a lack of significant coverage on this topic. LibStar (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that User:Blackknight12 is the article creator. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This one is worse than most, as its main feature is a simple comparison of the countries with no bearing on their relations. Apparently, though, their significant enough to have non-resident ambassadors. No coverage of the topic as a whole or the significance of these two countres' relations on the world stage from third-party sources. Non-notable. --BlueSquadronRaven 16:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship. [12] And Romania has an embassy in Colombo, again the information was provided in a source given by the nominator [13].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This topic falls under the general notability guidelines which require that there be direct detailed coverage of a topic in multiple reliable, independent sources if we are to have an article about it on wikipedia. I'm not seeing that for this topic. There's really nothing here.Yilloslime ^T_C 19:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There seems to be no coverage of this relationship in any type of source. Mah favourite (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator actually provided an independent third party source detailing the relationship. [14]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it is not the responsibility of the nominator to find sources. those wanting to keep should find evidence. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was pointing out that Mah favorite has based his delete vote on something that is not true. Since you are nominating this article for deletion on the basis of an absence of sources, you DO have a responsibility to do a good faith search for those sources! Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Before_nominating_an_article_for_deletion provides: "When nominating due to sourcing or notability concerns, make a good-faith attempt to confirm that such sources don't exist." The fact that you think you don't after nominating hundreds of these articles for deletion for this reason astounds me.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 15:33, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The existence of relations has been verified [15] and independent third party coverage exists satisfying notability.[16] Votes to delete have ignored these cites which were provided by the nominator. This article requires development, not deletion.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 22:52, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

there is no significant third party coverage of these bilateral relations. I note there have been no agreements in the past 20 years despite Romania moving to a capitalist free trade economy. you have found 1 mere source which is more "we want to do more trade" usual thing without evidence of significant trade or trade agreements. I don't deny the existence of relations which can be easily verified. however, the existence of relations is not the same as notable relations. Wikipedia is about notable topics not every topic. I think it is really stretching it compared to other notable examples to say notable relations exist here. LibStar (talk) 12:00, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You say affirmatively that there is no significant third party coverage but it's clear you haven't done very much looking. Notability doesn't expire. Saying that we shouldn't have a mention of international agreements because they're more than 20 years old is clearly WP:recentism.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 16:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment. I won't speak for anyone else, but I personally I am not ignoring anything. Firstly, I've never doubted that the relations exist--that's not the issues. The issue is notability, not verifiability. Secondly, and to the point, a lone article[17] on a Romanian trade official's address to the Ceylon Chamber Commerce does not, by any stretch of the imagination, constitute "significant coverage in reliable sources". Yilloslime ^T_C 23:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:GNG requirements make clear that "significant" coverage can be established by just one article. It is simply preferred that there be multiple sources. ("The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.") --Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus there are other sources. The bilateral treaties between Romania and Sri Lanka are mentioned in books. [18], [19]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:43, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

remember that GNG also considers the depth of coverage, it does not appear that this is in depth coverage rather 1 or 2 line mentions. if for example there was a whole newspaper article about these agreements not treaties, that would be indepth. LibStar (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See my comment below. Your assertion that these are not "treaties" appears to be false. You certainly haven't provided any evidence. The independent third party cites showing the existence of relations that I've collected so far are as follows: [20][21][22][23][24][25] Governmental cites providing info: [26][27].--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment regarding agreements The Agreement on the promotion and protection of investment and

Convention for the Avoidance of Double Taxation I have seen in almost every bilateral combination of any 2 countries that do trade even at the very small levels of these 2 countries. it is hardly something that adds greatly to proving notable bilateral relations. LibStar (talk) 12:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...says the guys who's tried to delete hundreds of these articles. Your personal opinion that a bilateral international treaty shouldn't qualify as being significant enough for mention in this encyclopedia is pretty unconvincing. Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all human knowledge: all of the topics covered by a conventional print encyclopedia plus any other "notable" topics, which are permitted by unlimited disk space. This article could be kept under either of these criteria.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia is supposed to be a summary of all human knowledge" not true. my family tree, my under 10 basketball team members and local shops are part of human knowledge but do not and should not have WP articles. according to WP:NOT not everything qualifies for inclusion. all WP articles must be notable for inclusion, please read WP:N and WP:GNG let's await the consensus of this. by the way they are agreements, treaties are much stronger. If they were treaties they would add to notability more. secondly you seem to ignore the fact that in the last 22 years the countries have not bothered to negotiate 1 agreement. says something about their "notable" relations doesn't it? especially since Romania is a democratic free trade country now. you also probably oppose 100s of bilateral articles that have been redirected too. LibStar (talk) 13:30, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that the treaty on economic and technical cooperation is mentioned in The American review of East-West trade, Volume 1‎ - Page 151 which provides "An agreement on economic and technical cooperation between Romania and Ceylon provides for delivery of 1 50000 tons of oil and oil products by Romania...." [28]--Cdogsimmons (talk) 13:35, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

it's an agreement not a treaty. also not sure if this source is really indepth. does it just mention this agreement in 1 line and that's it? is there major newspaper coverage of this agreement? LibStar (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a treaty? "A treaty is an agreement under international law entered into by actors in international law, namely sovereign states and international organizations." [29] That sounds like what we have here. Major newspaper? How do you define that? Since there's no requirement that a "major" newspaper mention the subject matter for the topic to be notable, I don't think that's very relevant.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete - in my opinion, significant coverage has not been demonstrated to exist. That is not to say that the topic itself does not exist, etc., just that I don't feel that the threshold has been met. Cocytus [»talk«] 16:52, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Count your chickens before they hatch[edit]

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

Neologism, WP:NOTDICTIONARY, etc. This is not encyclopedic content. Potentially can be transwikied, but probably not worth the effort given the amount of content. Shirik (talk) 09:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think Wiktionary needs this variation on the theme. Polarpanda (talk) 10:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, phrase probably not notable. --TheGrimReaper 13:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT#DICT and does anyone every actually say that one? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Gee, this reminds me of the Weird Al Yankovic song "Dare to Be Stupid!". I suppose that it does "sarcastically counter the popular metaphor" (and brilliantly, I might add. Remove the word "don't", and voila! Powerfully imaginative!). Do we require an explanation on how that works? The phrase certainly isn't popular. In fact, it's kind of lame. Mandsford (talk) 03:00, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion to save delete I created the page. I have a suggestion to save the delete (although I have no issues with the deletion of this page here). In case the page Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch --which is also proposed for deletion -- escapes deletion, then this page Count your chickens before they hatch could be a redirect to the other page. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:50, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that's a plausible search, but then again, "why not" I think is a valid argument there too. I could be persuaded either way for the redirect. --Shirik (talk) 06:27, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Keep but rename and rework to be about the fable seems to be the emerging consensus. Fences&Windows 15:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDICTIONARY, this is not encyclopedic content. Potentially transwikiable, but I am not sure that is worth it. Shirik (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Wiktionary already has this Polarpanda (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Wikipedia is not a dictionary, does not require transwikification due to the phrase's presence on Wiktionary.. --TheGrimReaper 13:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#DICT. Joe Chill (talk) 17:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NOT#DICT -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Sadly, Wiktionary is one of the well-kept secrets on Wikipedia, something you really can't navigate to unless you go back to the wikimedia page and you're already aware of it, and by that time, why bother, google it. It gets mentioned here a lot, but AfD forum is another tar pit that one finds only by stumbling into. I can see a purpose for an article about the phrase, or at least about the Aesop's fable upon which it is based. One would never guess it from the title, "The Milkmaid and Her Pail" (she was thinking about trading the pail of milk for eggs and got distracted). That would be a keeper, since we seem to keep an article about nearly every song ever recorded. Until Wiktionary is listed in the sidebar, I'll never vote keep or delete on an article simply because it might exist somewhere else. That said, this article isn't very well sourced, and consists of one person's explanation of what the phrase means. Not a keeper. Mandsford (talk) 03:15, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It seems that the fable is richer and more compelling than this moral that's drawn from it. There are articles on many of Aesop's Fables, but not this one. Could the fable be extracted as an article, and this moral redirected to the new article, or a section of that article? Surely that article would thrive in the care of folklorists where this one withers for want of moralists. Or is that cheating? Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:19, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the article and have no issues with the deletion. I have only one point which might go a long way in perhaps changing your views. Going beyond the definition of the term Don't count your chickens before they hatch, if we include plays, books, that have been written on this topic, would you be ok in keeping this article then? Because wiktionary perhaps would never have contents that would disambiguate the various real life usages of this article. Therefore, I would suggest that you put a tag on top of the article giving out details of request for adding additional citations. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, in that the author is looking at improving the article and someone else is tagging it for rescue. I do see the potential in it, and it could easily be sourced. I'd change the capitalization to "Don't count your chickens before they hatch" and make it about Aesop's fable and the subsequent usage for the proverb, because I think it goes beyond a dictionary definition. Kind of like "a stitch in time saves nine" or "don't cry wolf", the meaning isn't readily obvious, and some people never hear it until they're getting credit counseling. It's a fable, it's a proverb, it's a meme to explain a concept in seven words. Mandsford (talk) 14:08, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that it is a valid argument that, if the article were to include some additional material beyond the phrase itself, such as the discussions of usage in Aesop's fables that was mentioned earlier, then it's quite possible it would be worthy of inclusion. I'll add a relevant maintenance tag as well to the article, but for now I retain my delete vote pending some sustenance. I'll see if I can look for some potential material tomorrow in hopes of rescue. --Shirik (talk) 06:25, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've changed my mind from delete to rename to "The milkmaid and her pail". Polarpanda (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm working on the Aesop fable part of the article, although I think that "Don't count your chickens..." needs to be the name of the page. The fable itself is the background to an enduring phrase. By the way, anyone else who wants to see the translations of the story over the years would enjoy this site [30]. If anyone knows Latin, I'm curious as to when this first shows up. Mandsford (talk) 19:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps the name of a section explaining this idiom in a new article The Milkmaid and Her Pail, with this topic redirected to one or the other, pro forma the section "Sour grapes" in the article about Aesop's fable The Fox and the Grapes, with the disambiguation page for the idiom linking the article. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Move this article to The Milkmaid and Her Pail, rework it from a moral with a fable to a fable with a moral, and redirect Don't count your chickens before they hatch [sic] to The Milkmaid and Her Pail. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination withdrawn. --SkyWalker (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Junko Sakurada[edit]

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

Fails WP:Notable and WP:BLP since it until yesterday it was totally unsourced, until two sources were added for her alleged religious affiliation. An example of the problems with this article is the opening sentence: "Junko Sakurada (桜田淳子, Sakurada Junko, born April 14, 1958) is a former singer and actress from the city of Akita, Akita Prefecture, Japan." None of these facts are sourced, including the rather remarkable assertion that she is a "former" singer. Did something happen to her so that she lost her voice? Northwestgnome (talk) 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Keep. Nominator's actions are bordering on WP:POINT, an attempt to get rid of an entry on List of Unificationists, in order to prove a point that the list is too small [31] [32]. Note that nominator also nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unificationists (2nd nomination). Subject of the article is notable per WP:NOTE. See sources in 53 sources in books, news archives, scholarly sources. Cirt (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is she also a doctor? Or is that someone with the same name? Northwestgnome (talk) 09:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that is a different person. I will work to improve this article. Cirt (talk) 10:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She is fairly notable in Japan. The Japanese article fully describes her notability, although the English article may not yet. ―― Phoenix7777 (talk) 10:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks for linking to that one, that appears to be a much more extensive treatment. ;) Cirt (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will withdraw the nomination if the problems with the article are solved. Northwestgnome (talk) 10:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False argument. WP:UGLY, WP:NOEFFORT. Cirt (talk) 10:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long list at IMDB, are we not allowed to use that? Polarpanda (talk) 10:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I added a list of Awards and nominations. ;) Cirt (talk) 10:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's better than nothing. How about finding a source that says she is a "former singer and actress"? Northwestgnome (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed that part. Cirt (talk) 11:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article now contradicts itself, which is (IMO) the result of the minor importance of this person not the lack of effort on the part of Wikipedians. She is said to have retired soon after her wedding in 1992, yet won two awards for her acting in 1994.Northwestgnome (talk) 11:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. A person can still be in movies and receive awards, and yet wish to not be a part of public life. Cirt (talk) 11:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I have worked to improve the article [33]. Cheers, Cirt (talk) 12:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. —Cirt (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and kudos to Cirt for establishing her notability with reliable sources. I also found two sources in Japanese confirming two of her 'Best Supporting Actress' awards which have been added. Working to find confirmation on the others but the translating is tough. J04n(talk page) 12:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - noteworthy in Japan - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination withdrawn now that her notability has been established and her story explained. Northwestgnome (talk) 13:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy redirect to Gaming Community. Malinaccier (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The gaming community[edit]

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

Dupe of the information at gamer. Not notable enough for redirect. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete under criterion A10 for being a duplicate article with an implausible redirect. Shirik (talk) 09:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete there is already an article Gaming Community. Possibly merge, but right now with lack of sources delete DRosin (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or just redirect as a plausible search term. Polarpanda (talk) 11:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:27, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anushilon[edit]

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

Non notable compilation album. Notability is not established using references from reliable sources. Fails WP:MUSIC. Ragib (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 12:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. PDCook (talk) 14:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any coverage for this compilation; does not appear to pass WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 22:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Landcruise[edit]

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

Delete. Unreferenced neologism, something made up, contested prod. WWGB (talk) 07:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —WWGB (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pity we have to waste our time with this. Polarpanda (talk) 11:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there are some references online to the expression "land cruise", referring to a tour by train, e.g. [34]. I can't find any evidence for the motorhome usage here, so delete per WP:NEO. MuffledThud (talk) 15:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 17:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete and Redirect as a {{R from mispelling}} to Toyota Landcruiser. I don't see why the WWGB needs to delete a problem that was already fixed (ie, repurposed). And redirects are deleted at WP:RFD. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article refers to a created verb "to landcruise". It is not related to a Toyota Landcruiser, misspelling or otherwise. WWGB (talk) 08:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was nominated for deletion, so a WP:BOLD repurposing of the article name , since it is a mispelling of Landcruiser, fixes the problem of a bad article with a useful redirect. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 06:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. See WP:USEFUL. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Esobi[edit]

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

Non-notable software that is sourced only to the publisher. A softpedia link is not a source, and neither is placement on a list of software that works with Microsoft Windows. Searching references links to press releases and patents, but not reliable mainstream sources that show notability. Miami33139 (talk) 07:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this software. Joe Chill (talk) 17:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save: This article gave me exactly the information I wanted about a pre-installed software package on my laptop and was valuable to me. These types of articles are exactly what I love about Wikipedia. I would never be able to find such a practical, useful, non-academic article in an encyclopedia run by one of the traditional paper based publisher encyclopedia web sites. Thanks Wikipedia for fulfilling my everyday needs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JacksonJarvis (talk • contribs) 13:52, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A search returns only download sites and the typical directory/social media links. None of those are reliable sources. There's no coverage and no notability. Transmissionelement (talk) 16:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save: I was about to delete this software from a laptop I was working on and decided to find out more about it first. From reading this article there are enough features listed here to warrant saving the software until I have time to really look into it. Since Acer now appears to 'own' eSobi a link from the Acer, Inc. page should be added to point here ... and Acer is notable. Just think how wrong it would have been to delete the Twitter entry in it's early days before it became a tool used by Iranian students to coordinate freedom rallys. This software may not be the next Twitter but someone thought enough of it to get the Windows Vista and Windows 7 'compatibility stamp' for it which can be time consuming. (2009-12-15, rnr, 8:06pm UTC/GMT) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.150.66 (talk) 20:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save: When I saw this software on my new Acer netbook I had no idea what it was. I launched it and it provided me with no useful information but it wanted me to accept a license, etc. So I stopped the program and searched Wikipedia, and this article provided me with at least some useful information. Maybe it's not the perfect article but it is the best and most easily available information currently available. And I am very glad it was here. Mario T DeFazio (talk) 01:12, 18 December 2009 (UTC)— Mario T Defazio (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Countries Visited by Elvis Presley[edit]

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

Do we need this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 05:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Elvis Presley. The topic isn't notable enough for it's own article. smithers - talk - sign! 06:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable Paul75 (talk) 07:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually rather interesting. Should be mentioned in Elvis's own article with proper sourcing.Northwestgnome (talk) 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With good sources maybe merge with Elvis, but a bit of a stretch having an article on it's own for this DRosin (talk) 09:38, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While it's satisfying to know that I've been to more countries than Elvis, this isn't encyclopedic. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom--Brunnian (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hate to be too tough on a new contributor and their first contribution. Sorry, User:Livinadublife, welcome to AfD. Tough room! If it's any consolation, many of these people have been booed off the stage at one time or another as well. Plus, there's probably still time to cancel the check if you sent a donation to Wikimedia. Anyway, I'd have to say delete as well, although I agree with Northwestgnome that it can be mentioned in the article about Elvis; there's a place for almost everything. The article is organized and written well. However, I see a problem in setting a precedent for listing countries visited by any person-- Presidents, singers, astronauts, etc. Anyway, don't let this deter you from contributing to Wikipedia. Mandsford (talk) 03:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete: as already stated. Could be seen as WP:Listcruft. Mattg82 (talk) 01:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of Schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee#Milwaukee County. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic East Elementary[edit]

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

Small elementary school which does not claim to notability. Fails Wikipedia:SCHOOL (though the guideline is a failed consensus). Based on the fact that it is private and isn't affiliated with any large organizations, I do not see a merge/redirect happening. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. —~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 04:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee#Milwaukee County where it is mentioned and I have merged some bare-bones facts. TerriersFan (talk) 04:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per TerriersFan. I see no special notability for the school and much of the content is off-topic. Royal broil 23:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per common outcomes. Not notable at all by itself, and fails my own notability standards. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of Schools in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Milwaukee#Milwaukee County, per TerriersFan. Elementary school without anything that makes it notable. --Baron Larf 07:03, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete, with no prejudice towards creating such lists where left-handedness is relevant (e.g. boxers or pitchers). Jayjg ^(talk) 04:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of left-handed sportspeople[edit]

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

While in some cases like baseball handedness is relevant, this is an inappropriate way to convey that. With about 10% of all people being left-handed, this is a completely indiscriminate list. Reywas92^Talk 03:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Too broad of a criteria for encyclopedic discussion of the contents of the list, per WP:SALAT. Being lefthanded may be discussed in the articles of these people, but there's no notable tying factor between left-handed players of different sports. It may be notable in baseball, but in Association Football/Soccer, who cares? Them From Space 05:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Themfromspace. WAAAAAAAAAY too broad. Maybe a category instead? smithers - talk - sign! 06:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only include those sports where handedness is relevant, such as boxing and baseball. Polarpanda (talk) 11:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what's meant by the term "indiscriminate list". I'm surprised it's been here since June 2008. There's very little here to describe any of these people, just a big mess of blue links and an occasional comment or two. Left-handed athletes are the minority in all sports, but as with any fraction of thousands and thousands of people, there are thousands of them. Mandsford (talk) 03:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Overly broad. MKFI (talk) 12:11, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Per this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:43, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to complain bitterly about the deletion of list of left-handed boxers along with this page. Polarpanda (talk) 17:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not useful or informative as a list. Sublists for certain sports might be acceptable - e.g. List of left-handed baseball players, or List of left-handed boxers - but a general list like this just encourages people to add sports players whose left-handedness makes absolutely no difference to their sport. This actually worked better as a category. Robofish (talk) 01:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:28, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kangaroo attack in Canberra 2009[edit]

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

This article about an incident in which a kangaroo blundered into a house clearly fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's not at all rare for kangaroos to hop into gardens of Australian houses near the bush and from time to time they enter houses; big deal. When kangaroos feel threatened they sometimes lash out at whatever's near them, so calling this an 'attack' is ludicrous. The claim that the incident had wider significance ("and the attack was used partly to justify the culling of 4,000 kangaroos in the Canberra area in May 2009") is not supported by the reference given, which simply mentions it alongside another incident relating to kangaroos in Canberra during 2009. Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article's claim that the incident lead to calls for a cull of kangaroos in the Canberra area is also not supported by the sources, which state that the reason given for the cull was over population and merely mention this incident alongside this; none of them draw any clear link between the incident and the cull. Nick-D (talk) 03:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. This "attack" was addressed at the AFD for Kangaroo attacks in Australia.[35] It's a single news item and there is no justification for an entire article about it. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The ACT government released a kangaroo management plan with community comment open between 17 March 2009 and 11 May 2009. The comments they received would have been likely to have been affected by this widely reported kangaroo attack on 8 March leading to the cull which began in May. James4750 (talk) 04:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment That appears to be nothing but your own speculation, and seems fairly unlikely given that Australians are aware that kangaroos are not dangerous animals. Nick-D (talk) 05:45, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I live in Canberra and have never heard of this. It's plainly not notable, and doesn't justify an article per WP:NOTNEWS.--Mkativerata (talk) 04:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really silly. An animal blunders into someone's house. This is not notable (on WP) or even an "attack." Northwestgnome (talk) 10:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS - actually would be quite at home at Wikinews but not here. Orderinchaos 11:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per other delete arguments above - the reverse is probably more of an issue - motor vehicles attack kangaroos daily - Satu Suro 13:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOT#NEWS. Joe Chill (talk) 17:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Completely unnotable random news item; fails WP:N and WP:NOT#NEWS -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I love the play-by-play description ("Initial warning"; "Point of entry", "Move into son's bedroom", etc.), although it underscores how trivial this incident really was. Was there kangaroo hair that had to be vaccuumed off the floor? Any really gross stains? Mandsford (talk) 03:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Kanga-poo? Orderinchaos 09:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! And please, no color photos! Mandsford (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:NOT#NEWS, While the event may have made it to the international news outlets (on a slow news day/week) it was only a one off and not notable. Just shows what happens when a Kangaroo gets out on the wrong side of the bed in the morning (*Sarcasm*)! ;) Bidgee (talk) 14:33, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nomination. — AustralianRupert (talk) 04:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this article was filler in a slow news day. There is no real substance that could merit an article here. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 05:32, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've said it a million times: you can't judge a subject by your view of its inherent triviality. "Just a kangaroo hopping around" isn't much of an argument. The plentiful press sources demonstrate that many people attached importance to the subject, and it's the assessment of the outside world that matters, not the assessment of Wikipedians. We should only be here to judge whether or not the outside world has assigned notability to a subject, and in this case there's no question that it has. Everyking (talk) 07:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment A large number of the news articles treat the incident in a trivial way with silly titles, such as Int-roo-der's really jumpy". Most have taken time to include the rather comical quote, "it's a lunatic ninja coming through the window". At least one included "ninja" in the article's title.[36] Clearly it was treated as a trivial, filler article rather than something of importance. The articles are generally reprints of the AP article, with the occasional copyedit so the local editor's name could be used. The fact is that such incidents occur so often that they are trivial, as trivial as the average dog bite or cat scratch. And, of course, the article still fails WP:NOT#NEWS whichever way you look at it. --AussieLegend (talk) 11:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - On this radio interview they said they heard from CNN Atlanta, and reporters from Miami, Chicago, France, the United Kingdom and her husband had been interviewed by Swiss radio. How often does that happen with the average dog/cat attack? Another good interview is here by the way.James4750 (talk) 12:41, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Kangaroos are more unusual outside Australia than cats and dogs and, being a very well known national icon, are likely to draw more attention. That, in no way, means that the incident is any less trivial or more important than the average dog bite or cat scratch. In fact, because of the very high 'roo population in close proximity to humans in the ACT, it's surprising that there aren't more such incidents. --AussieLegend (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - You're trying to rationalize and explain away why it received attention—but it doesn't matter why it received attention. What matters is that it received attention, even if it's silly, trivial, and didn't deserve it. Everyking (talk) 19:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Your justification for keeping the article is that people assigned a level of importance to it. My point is that it wasn't importance, it was treated as trivial. You're ignoring the fact that it fails WP:NOT#NEWS. It's most certainly not historically notable. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Would it make a difference if the papers had reported the story in a consistently grave and serious tone? It wouldn't get press coverage if it wasn't deemed important—press coverage costs time and money. There's really no other way to objectively evaluate these things. Say there are three kangaroo incidents, and all receive identical levels of press coverage: in one of them, the kangaroo knocks over a lamp and breaks it; in another one, the kangaroo injures someone; and in the last one, the kangaroo kills someone. Are we going to say that there's an ascending level of notability, that notability is measured in the number of human lives lost or blood spilt? I think that's silly. Instead of trying to enforce some nebulous concept of what should be notable based on inherent attributes of the subject, let's just reflect what the world at large deems notable. We can do that in a very simple and consistent way by reviewing published sources. Everyking (talk) 01:51, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        The tone is irrelevant, this article fails WP:NOT#NEWS regardless. I'm afraid you're wrong about unimportant things not getting press coverage. They get coverage all of the time. Have you ever looked through a "Letters to the editor" section? What gets coverage is items that encourage people to buy newspapers, regardless of their importance, and "Letters to the editor", where average people can see their name in print, and cutesy stories about ninja kangaroos, or the old lady who thinks her next door neighbours have set up a robot frog to keep her awake all night encourage people to buy newspapers. The frog saga has been going on since ~2003 and has been on numerous current affair and news TV programs, on the radio and in the newspapers in Australia and overseas so many times I've lost count but we don't have an article because, like the ninja kangaroo incident, it's not historically notable, even though it has had a lot more coverage than the ninja kangaroo has. --AussieLegend (talk) 03:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A good test of whether WP:NOT#NEWS applies is if the event attracted any attention a few days or weeks after it occurred or led to any significant changes. Neither was the case here; there was a lot of media coverage for a couple of days, and then nothing. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        A week later, April 2009, September 2009... Everyking (talk) 16:58, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't see how brief mentions of this incident in stories on similar incidents which add nothing new constitute any kind of meaningful or ongoing coverage - eg, there's no follow up to this incident. Nick-D (talk) 18:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        In those sources, we can see that this incident was referenced when other things related to kangaroos happened—in the first case, a kangaroo cull; in the latter two, other kangaroo attacks. The incident was deemed memorable and significant enough to be used as a reference point with regard to human–kangaroo interaction for at least a few months afterward. Everyking (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely non-notable. No impact on history whatsoever etc YellowMonkey (bananabucket) (Invincibles finally at Featured topic candidates) 21:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What does it mean to have an "impact on history"? Can that be defined in some kind of meaningful way that wouldn't require the deletion of most of Wikipedia's existing content? Because when I think of "impact on history", I think of subjects like Newton and Marx—certainly not subjects like the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 (let alone its litany of subarticles—not to say I don't think they're all excellent!). Everyking (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is what NOT NEWS is properly for, not things that are moderately likely to be historical.
Delete - Not news, not historical, etc. Everyone above has covered it well. Shadowjams (talk) 04:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not news, I don't feel that stuff that appears in the "weird world" column really qualifies as a reliable source. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UPWA Pro Wrestling[edit]

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

Doesn't meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). Nikki♥311 02:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —Nikki♥311 02:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I agree with nom.--WillC 05:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Far from notable, delete it. MPJ-DK (50% Done) Talk 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly not notable, and if it wasn't for the names there I'd speedy it as having no attempt made to establish notability. !! Justa Punk !! 12:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I get the impression this is a hoax. Afro ^{Talkie Talk - Afkatk} 22:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:49, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FedCon[edit]

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

Appears to fail general notability. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~The article is a mess, it appears self-serving, and is unencyclopadic.~~ However, as was pointed out in another recent AfD discussion, this process is not for cleanup of articles. gHits and gNews are difficult to work through given how closely tied an event like this is to the web, but a slightly more than cursory glance indicates that for a determined editor there is probably enough to establish notability. Attendance claims of 5K and the caliber of celebrities that attend also hint at notability. With that in mind, Keep.Vulture19 (talk) 03:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: daPete did a cleanup. Vulture19 (talk) 15:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disclaimer: I created the article, and I've been at every Fedcon since 2000, as a regular visitor.
God was this a mess. For now I have just removed the advertising bits completely, most of which was added by User:Fedconusa (probably in attempt to advertise the ill-fated Fedcon USA convention). If SchuminWeb had raised any particular concerns why Fedcon is not notable, I would have liked to address them. I assume one problem is that the assertion that it is the biggest Star Trek/Scifi convention in Europe is not properly sourced. That is a problem, but not one warranting deleting the article, IMO. Keep. --dapete 09:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless third party reliable sources (not fansites) are added to the article showing interest in FedCon outside of the fan community. Miami33139 (talk) 10:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dapete did some fine work to cleanup the article, and two references have been added to support the claim of this being the largest ST convention in Europe. There are quite a few German language citations out there, also, that could be used by someone who speaks German. Vulture19 (talk) 15:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, promotional. Someidiot (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I got there via links from pages about the "Star Trek: Enterprise" series, which is pretty well-known. It's not the greatest wiki article but it makes a decent stub, so people know what it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.215.146 (talk) 15:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:20, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems notable enough. Many Google and GoogleNews hits - many in German which might be why people are not finding them. --MelanieN (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:29, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gabriel Ellis[edit]

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

Actor who once appeared in a 50 Cent film. No evidence of "significant roles," "a large fan base," etc. per WP:ENT Glenfarclas (talk) 02:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this actor. Joe Chill (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Having a minor role in one movie does not make Ellis notable. Malinaccier (talk) 16:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There are good arguments on all sides. It is quite clear that the article has many sources, and that a large proportion of them are self-published. However, whether the remaining secondary sources are notable has not really been resolved in this discussion. On the delete side, Szzuk's comments are basically WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC and WP:USELESS. On the merge side, Exit2DOS's concern about the lack of articles on other types of suture does not hold up; WP:WAX. On the keep side, Malarman's comments do not really show why this should be kept, Tatsel1's comments are incomprehensible. Overall, a pretty balanced debate. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Serdev suture[edit]

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

Medical technique for which it is impossible to establish notability for inclusion. The technique certainly exists, but I don't see that it is notable. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:15, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enclyclopedic. Not useful. Best left in a medical book. Szzuk (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:32, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Has this technique been described in a peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook? -- Eastmain (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about textbooks (it's not my field), but as for journals, yes, an article by the person who devised it: Serdev, Nikolay P. (2006). "'Serdev suture' methods in Cosmetic Surgery: filos elasticos Serdev". International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery 6 (1): 408–503. And it looks like a couple more articles by Serdev himself as well. But I imagine the question is whether others have written about it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

***Does that article really count when Serdev is the managing editor of the journal? Narayanese (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Even if it is in a peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook, What would make this method superior to any other? I assume all other methods would have the same peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook status. Would any particular suture's use be simply dependent upon the body location, skin type and the "customary" one used by the particular Dr.? (IAND, prolly more variables ...but... you see my point?) I cant see what would make any 1 method more WP:Notable than another? and this Article does not explain it to me. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 03:37, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- More to the point, is this method used by other plastic surgeons? Or are other plastic surgeons discussing it in journals or medical books etc? If yes then I think that it should be kept or at least merged (somewhere, not sure where yet:=]). If not then I lean towards deleting.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 23:51, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per the interest.Serdev suture Keep creativeness. Keep the free development of medicine out of the context of plastic surgery societies and plastic surgery journals. Tatsel1 (talk) 23:21, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you or somebody please explain to me what the above means? I am sorry but it makes no sense to me in the context of this discussion (or any other context I can imagine). Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 16:33, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think there are enough references to its use, and even to it becoming a standard procedure. DGG ( talk ) 00:22, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Article on an unproven medical treatment that is wholly made up of primary sources. No encyclopedic value in this state and puts readers in real danger of being misinformed. Seems intended as an advertisement. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Strongly Keep" The article is well referenced and the author is indeed notable. It is germane that in the article "Economic Analysis Of The Future Growth Of Cosmetic Surgery Procedures” (Plast Reconstr Surg. 2008 Jun;121(6):404e-412 Liu TS Miller TA. Department of Surgery, Division of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center), it is noted that of cosmetic procedures performed by plastic surgeon members of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS) in 2005, 66 % were non-surgical. The article also projected that by

2015, 88 %of cosmetic procedures performed by these member surgeons will be non-surgical. The authors concluded that “If current growth rates continue into the next decade, the future demand in cosmetic surgery will be driven largely by non-surgical procedures.” Professor Serdev is notably in the forefront of this trend. In this regard his techniques have certainly been cited in medical text books-for example see "Simplified Facial Rejuvenation(Hardcover) by Melvin A. Shiffman, Sid J. Mirrafati" Hardcover: 658 pages Publisher: Springer; 1st edition (December 12, 2007) pages 267,271,272,286. Professor Serdev's the subject matter is interesting and provides information to the public accessing this encyclopedia about a contemporary but established (albeit minimally invasive) cosmetic surgery technique. One must not lose sight that "Wikipedia's intent is to have articles that cover existing knowledge, not create new knowledge (original research)." Accordingly it is entirely subjective and incorrect for some editors (possibly including competing surgeons) to deny the notability of this method when it is widely disseminated on the www and can there be seen to be used by many other practitioners of cosmetic surgery around the globe. One should also not lose sight of the function of an encyclopedia-"Indeed, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to collect knowledge disseminated around the globe; to set forth its general system to the men with whom we live, and transmit it to those who will come after us, so that the work of preceding centuries will not become useless to the centuries to come; and so that our offspring, becoming better instructed, will at the same time become more virtuous and happy, and that we should not die without having rendered a service to the human race in the future years to come.[2] Diderot -(Denis Diderot and Jean le Rond d'Alembert Encyclopédie. University of Michigan Library:Scholarly Publishing Office and DLXS.)Malarman (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The whole article is fluff from primary sources. If someone wants to use the one source and only source that can be found on google news and google books, a paragraph about this subject, go for it. But Wikipedia is not for promotion and fluff about paid membership in "Who's Who 2009". A successful plastic surgeon should have no problem paying for google ads and setting up a promotional website. We're not a webhost and shouldn't be advertising business and promote profitable enterprises with content that isn't sourced. This article is totally unencyclopedic and needs to be deleted. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Professor Serdev is cosmetic surgeon-not a plastic surgeon. His contribution is in the field of minimally invasive cosmetic surgery (although he has published in the past on burns surgery in the plastic/military surgery literature). The article appears to be informative in intent rather than promotional. An encyclopedia is theoretically supposed to be a source of information to the general public and the subject article has the necessary authenticity to adequately fulfill that criterion. Claims of "fluff" are unreasonable and serve to diminish the genuine contribution of this surgeon’s innovation(s). This editorial forum should not serve as an opportunity for some princes of darkness to disengage the public.Malarman (talk) 10:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Notes:

All the sources are effectively self published, apart from the dump of Google added recently.
User:Malaman and User:Tatsell seem to be SPAs.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Comment I think this will boil down to whether and article in the International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery meets the guidelines for notability. If this is a peer-reviewed journal, then that seems to indicate that the technique is notable to cosmetic surgeons and ultimately to their patients. The journal is the record of the International Academy of Cosmetic Surgery and the International Board of Cosmetic Surgery. Vulture19 (talk) 20:46, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, coverage in the "International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery", which appears to be a reliable source, meets WP:GNG. That Serdev is the author of the articles is immaterial, since content published in peer-reviewed journals is endorsed by the journals themselves. Andrea105 (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Name a suture that does not satisfy that particular requirement?!?! Every suture method would have some peer-reviewed medical journal or a widely-used textbook mentioning it, as has been stated prior in this AFD. The real question that needs satisfying is Is this suture method Notable beyond other methods ?. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:32, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery" does not appear to be an RS. The organisations it is related too are not recognised by RCS, although based in the UK and providing fellowship for a fee and exam to those with experience in "ginacology" among other disciplines. Rich Farmbrough, 04:05, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Merge - I have waited til now to see how Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nikolay P. Serdev would close. I agree with the Nom that "...it is impossible to establish notability for inclusion." Until such time as the suture method itself gains irrefutable Notability, it should be upmerged into the Article of its creator, with a possible redirect from this Title. That way there is no loss of information, and the possibility remains for recreation, once consensus agrees. At this point I can see no clear consensus either way. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 01:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since there there are no indications that the International Journal of Cosmetic Surgery is peer-reviewed and recognised. And ChildofMidnight has a point. Narayanese (talk) 22:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to main article. Of 5 people who spoke up here, 4 seem to be fine with redirect to main article. One person wrote "Keep When there is enough information to support a separate article on a specialized aspect [...]". There is, at least currently, not enough information. The article contains no directly sourced information; there is one external link, which is however about the order and does not even contain the term "Halbbruder".

The article may be recreated in the future according to the conditions described by Vagu's last message. In that event, it should be under the singular form "Halbbruder", and the article needs to mention the primary meaning of the term wikt:Halbbruder. — Sebastian 03:52, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Halbbrüder[edit]

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

Non-Notable title of common members of the Teutonic Knights, who served in economy and hospitals. There is sufficient information about Halbbrüder (and Sariantbrüder, who are not the same) in the main article. According to the homepage of the German Order http://www.deutscher-orden.de/all_geschichte_start.php the informations of the article are wrong. The author of the article does not understand the difference between Sariantbrothers (warriors) and Halfbrothers (workers) Thw1309 (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I am a deletionist, but in this case I couldn't find much about these people in the article on the Teutonic Order. As for errors, well, they should be corrected if the above user can find a way to do it. Yours very sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 16:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main article. De728631 (talk) 16:30, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to know what you are talking about, Thw1309. Since you claim the article is erroneous, why dont you ellaborate or use a couple of sources instead of deleting? i will change the article and include the speculation that sariantbruder and halbbruder are not the same, but i need a source. i cant just expand the article without using sources, its like writing fiction. the only source i have on the matter is a teutonic order osprey book. now correct me if i am wrong but i really dont believe such books of lovely immages and simplified historiography can be used as sources to anything (thats why i didnt bother including it). i have no access to german bibliography, my german is poor, and believe me, i have searched thorowghly in the english and greek bibliography and there are simply not enough serious sources about the matter. i wrote the stub in hopes that someone would decide to write something serious on the subject. Thats what i thought stubs are for. as you said, the article contains non-confirmed, deficient and probably erroneous information. I say its better than no information at all.Vagu (talk) 21:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i added the difference between sariant and halfbrothers in the article. i used that order german website as a source as i checked it and it does mention exactly what the original Teutonic Order article mentions about them. of cource this 'source' looks more like a fan made website with pictures and text, and i fail to see how we can accept it as a valid source without doubt. I know this is going in the wrong direction (the article is getting bigger and there is only one source), so i can only hope someone will rewrite it. delete and rewrite please. dont just delete content that is not available anywhere else. Vagu (talk) 22:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is one big problem. Halbbrüder were the farmhands and servants of the order. Burchard von Schwanden wrote about them: "dâmit er sich verbinde zu dem ordene an dienste, an vihe zu hûtene, zu pflegene, zu acker zu gêne unde zu sein unde alle arbeit zu tûne nâch sînes conmendûres willen unde des hûses nôt." Halbbruder is the title for everyone, who is not important. If someone was neither Knightbrother nor Priestbrother nor Sariantbrother, then he was a halfbrother. Does someone realy think, the guy, who had to take care of the cows had any chance to become a Knight? All that is to be found about the cothes ist: "Daz oberste cleit sol sîn ein schaprûn mit wîten ermelen und mit eme halben crûze" which means, they wear a half cross on a short coat with wide arms. Why should they provide a farmhand with a white coat, when even Sariantbrothers, who were full members of the order had to use grey coats. Halfbrothers did not fight. Then why should they have shields? I don't know much about halfbrothers, except they were the servants, no full members of the order and the wore a half cross. Sources from these times usually show you much information about the lords, but almost nothing about the servants. Paper was to expensive to write about them. All I know about Halbrüder is: The informations of this article can not be right, because it refers to the Sariantbrothers or it is complete nonsense. Do you really want an article Halfbrothers were the servants of the Teutonic Order. Everyone who was no full Member of the Order was called that way. They were wearing a half cross on the coat. Please don't misunderstand me. I do not want Wikipedia only to contain informations about the lords. There simply is not enough information for a special article. The information of this special title of the order's servants should be part of Wikipedia, but it is not notable enough to create a special article. The same way I would be against an article about Knightbrothers, because they was no difference to any other knighted member of any other order, except the different colour of the coat. This simply is not enough to be notable. --Thw1309 (talk) 16:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it does make sense now. lets just delete the article since its more fiction than facts. It would certainly be a better idea if there was a separate article about the various Members of the Order, or Ranks of the Order and their uniforms, were some of the information provided above could be included, (as there are already references in the internet linking to this very halbbruder article which means people are indeed interedsted in the issue and are getting their info out of it, and the article is not just some space-taking junk. All this should not be included in the main Order Article in my opinion, in order to try and keep it relatively short, but should be included in a new article linked to it. I am not going to start this new article as i am clearly not qualified to do so. Thw1309, you could easily write something up on the subject, though. Do you want me to start it and let the editing and sources to you? Or do you insist such info should not be included in wikipedia. One last thing that puzzles me is that you say that halfbrothers are cowherders and servants. Still the site you provided mentions them (together with sariantbrothers) as Nobles?? Makes no sense to me. Maybe its the eastern medieval society that is more complicated than i though, as i never really understood this whole slave/noble/knight concept with the ministerialen and all that complex social structure... Vagu (talk) 13:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 23:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When there is enough information to support a separate article on a specialized aspect, we should write one if anyone is interested in doing so. There is no basis on policy for doing otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. -- Fences&Windows 02:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Nick-D (talk) 03:16, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. There isn't really a strong case for keeping the article. Arguments for keeping included WP:ITSNOTABLE, WP:USEFUL, and WP:VALINFO. The BLP concerns raised by the deletion side are substantial. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiger Woods' alleged affairs[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a newspaper nor is a collection of indiscriminate information. Non encyclopedic topic. RadioFan (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:BLP also. Has anyone written WP:NOT#Tabloid yet? Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the proper forum to organise and cite all the alleged affairs, together with information confirming or denying the stories validity. There are too many to fit comfortably into the main article.Andrewjlockley (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, this is not the proper forum. This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip site or message board forum. TJ Spyke 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Un-fork and Delete; this matter is properly covered at Tiger Woods. Devoting an entire article to this subject gives it undue weight, in violation of WP:BLP. Andrea105 (talk) 02:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I moved the page so that the title would also permit some information about the car accident and the fallout for his public image, career, and endorsements. Keeping John Edwards extramarital affair turned in part on the effect it had on his career. It may be too soon to tell for Woods, but early indications are not good. This article could be a well-written fork, but it's not off to a good start.--Chaser (talk) 02:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are massive BLP concerns (right now there are nothing but allegations, there is no actual proof of what women Woods was actually involved with), Wikipedia is not a news site or gossip site, and I don't see how this is encyclopedic. The title of the article alone says it: ALLEGED affairs. Even if this was a list of confirmed affairs I doubt the article would be worthy of keeping, a list of women claiming to have slept with Woods is not even close to deserving of an article. TJ Spyke 03:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Tiger Woods lost his sponsorship with Gillette and kept his sponsorship with Nike. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.73.145.187 (talk) 04:43, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Another similar article was deleted quickly this past week. Rachel Uchitel was deleted a week ago as well and is in DRV right now, but that article was probably the least biased source of information about Uchitel in my opinion. In the long term, though, I would envision an article like this ending up a part of the Tiger Woods article.--Milowent (talk) 03:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the sort of thing I look at with a sick sort of fascination. I'm not sure "sick fascination" is the stuff encyclopedias are made of. Seems to fall afoul of WP:NOTNEWS. Edison (talk) 03:34, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Describing your fascination as "sick" is just your highly subjective assessment of your own personal motives for reading the article. It's irrelevant to the rationale behind this deletion discussion. Dgf32 (talk) 08:12, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment "Sick fascination" falls under the general heading of "unencyclopedic" and "Wikipedia is WP:Not a tabloid" Edison (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an encyclopaedia not a gossip column. Woods' personal life is of some interest but a list of this nature is not needed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:25, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BLP issues, WP:NOT issues, and in general, an unnecessary fork from the main Tiger article. -- Mike (Kicking222) 04:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Nom. Wikipedia is NOT a gossip column. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.134.91.187 (talk) 05:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article is notable since this event has change the outlook of golf as it is. It unchained a series of events that need to be listed. This is the one of them, readers will need it. Thanks.--Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:53, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and fix. Is needed but I agree at this current state it is not very encyclopedic. Needs some experienced editors to fix, improve and expand. Kiwiteen123 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete See a previous nomination for List of Tiger Woods' lovers. It's pretty much all tabloids, it's likely many of the actual subjects without the prodding of money will never talk, and the word "alleged" should never be used in any article title. Nate • (chatter) 06:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP is not a tabloid, nor a newspaper, nor a collection of speculative material. When all his affairs are confirmed (I believe 11 women so far have attested to an affair with Mr. Woods) we can discuss existence of this article. But this won't survive, it's pure gossip and inertia of the moment. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:56, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per Alan Liefting and RUL3R. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. Also, this list is too short to have it's own article. Jimbö^V1 (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is scant information regarding these romances, and secondly, there is enough information in Tiger Woods' article as it is. And WP:NOTTHESUN, and the article is short, although that is no reason to delete in itself. --Ouro (blah blah) 08:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might eventually be a need for an article on the subject, but this is not that article, and it's not the time to write it. Any article that is eventually developed should consider the events from a historical perspective. The article at John Edwards extramarital affair is the type of article that could be appropriate. Dgf32 (talk) 08:28, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect. It's a content fork at best, and the section in the main article is far far better written than this "list" ever could hope to be anyway. bahamut0013^words _deeds 09:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Extremely notable. It was because of his affairs that Tiger Woods got beaten up by his wife and now he is heading for Sweden and leaving golf for an indefinite period. This article goes to the heart of his problems. It must be kept. Tovojolo (talk) 09:41, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per WP:BLP and WP:NOT. Blueboar (talk) 15:06, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Very important aspect of his life that has affected his profession to the point that he no longer plays golf. Important to be documented. However the article needs a massive clean.Reaper7 (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The Tiger Woods page has an excellent take on this at Tiger Woods#TWInfidelity. It is not large enough to justify getting its own page at this time. The Tiger Woods article is long and therefore this issue is not given WP:undue weight requiring a child article to achieve summary style. Maybe later. Not now. Not even close. This forked article offers nothing -- it is poorly written and adds nothing that the Tiger Woods page does well and will be a breeding ground for WP:BLP violations. Let the eyes of the editors focus on the Tiger Woods page. While this issue is red hot (and tabloid heavy), it is best to keep it where it is. As time goes on and if and when this becomes so large that a summary at Tiger Woods and a child article is required, then so be it. ∴ Therefore cogito·sum 21:40, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons given at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' lovers (I was the nominator on that one): "Unverifiable, BLP landmine, POV fork, unencyclopedic." At some point in the future when everything has settled down this may become proper subject matter for an encyclopedia article, but not now. --Glenfarclas (talk) 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This really gets into WP:BLP territory. Leave the rumors to other websites before this reaches 18 holes. Mandsford (talk) 03:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was particularly interested in learning on the list of affairs and I directly found it on the search box. Very useful for the average reader. Keep it and if possible someone make a three or four column collapsible table with whatever available picture there is under commons of each one of the alleged mistresses for readers to look at(I'd do it myself but I gotta work). Thanks. --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 06:49, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you used the phrase "alleged mistresses", since it sums up the problem really well. For Tiger Woods, it's no big deal if he is alleged to have had more affairs than the ones he has admitted to. On the other hand, each of these persons who gets identified on as an "alleged mistress" is someone who is, essentially, an ordinary person who is being tagged with an accusation for no other reason than someone is alleging it. And you're proposing that their pictures be put on here. Wow. Mandsford (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand at Tiger Woods extramarital affairs. The article has been renamed to Tiger Woods extramarital affairs and should be developed to discuss the entire episode, rather than just listing the bed post notches. This is clearly beyond a tabloid story at this point, and more significant than just a section in his bio. This is a major incident in sport in general, sport media, the history of golf, and sport sponsorships. This is not just some sex. Consider that Bloomberg News, arguably the farthest thing from a tabloid in the country, is today fronting a story Golf Inc. Pays for Tiger’s Affairs With Lost Ads, which says "Tiger Woods’s indiscretions will cascade through Golf Inc., costing the PGA Tour, television networks such as CBS and merchandise vendors like Nike Inc. $220 million or more in lost revenue." The extensive news coverage and the hundreds of millions of dollars in financial repercussions make this an obviously encyclopedic news story. The distaste for tabloid news is well-intentioned, but this goes far, far, far beyond prurience at this point. (Amazingly, the captcha to approve this post was the phrase "Whiteonly".) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.174.122 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - blatant violation of WP:BLP. I don't think we have similar 'list of affairs' articles for anyone, and nor should we, least of all for living people. There might, just possibly, be a case for a more well-developed article on 'Tiger Woods' affairs controversy' or something like that (though I think WP:NOTNEWS would still apply), but this is just flat-out unacceptable. Robofish (talk) 15:12, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, isn't this article pretty much a WP:G4 of the previous one deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Tiger Woods' lovers? Robofish (talk) 15:18, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Call of Duty (series). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:50, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dogs (Call of Duty)[edit]

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

Article about a minor feature in a video game. I don't see it as having any inherent notability, not even as a pop-culture phenomenon. I can't ever see us having an article on the dogs in Call of Duty. Wikipedia is not a game guide. There's also a question of sourcing; all we've got right now is a Wikia page, which typically aren't considered reliable sources. The content itself seems to be well-written, it just doesn't belong in an encyclopedia. Fortunately, that Wikia page does exist, so we don't need to worry about transferring content elsewhere. That Wikia page even comes up first for a Google search. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:50, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Interesting and worth including somewhere onthe internet, but doesn't meet this encyclopedia's guidelines. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Perhaps it should be given a single sentence or even a single clause in the Call of Duty article? --TheGrimReaper 13:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In general, I have no objection to merge. Looking at the current state of affairs, Call of Duty (series) is basically an overview of the various releases. Each game release has its own article. There's not much coverage of tactics/weapons in any of the articles. Perhaps there should be some kind of common "Gameplay elements in the Call of Duty series" article; perhaps not. Any which way, I don't see us getting into that much detail about the dogs, which are apparently a quite minor feature. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of video game related deletion discussions. MrKIA11 (talk) 01:48, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This might be of note as 1-2 sentences either the series article or one of the game articles, but as an article it fails WP:GAMETRIVIA and has no reliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete - Complete violation WP:GAMEGUIDE and WP:GAMETRIVIA. I think you may even have gotten away with a PROD there. Features of video games don't get their own articles, unless they're particularly notable for some reason (actually, the only one I can think of is Hot Coffee minigame controversy, but I don't know if this counts). Considering it exists in several games, a redirect would be tricky, so I'd suggest adding in a sentence or two about it into the related article (if it doesn't already exist). The Call of Duty (series) article doesn't have a "Common gameplay elements" section or anything, it's really just an overview of the games released. Even if there was, I think it'd be to minor a feature. Sorry for the length of this !vote, Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 21:56, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Gorod (band)[edit]

The result was keep, withdrawn -- thanks for the research :) Andrea105 (talk) 02:36, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article lacks any reliable sources to establish the notability of this band per WP:BAND or WP:GNG; a web search to find such sources was unsuccessful. Andrea105 (talk) 01:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], and [48]. Joe Chill (talk) 02:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jank 1000[edit]

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

Said to be big on the Omaha, Nebraska suburban pop punk scene, but apparently unknown to Google News. When one of the highlists is "some spots on the Vans Warped Tour" we are not a million miles away from here. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, lack of WP:RS. Andrea105 (talk) 01:14, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. —J04n(talk page) 07:47, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm not finding any significant coverage for this band; does not appear to pass WP:BAND. Gongshow ^Talk 22:21, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Embalmed Madness[edit]

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

Non-notable split album. Canniba loki 00:57, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per utter lack of reliable sources. Andrea105 (talk) 01:15, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can not find any significant coverage for this album; does not appear to meet WP:NALBUMS. Gongshow ^Talk 23:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete A5. SchuminWeb (Talk) 13:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contents of the Convention on the Rights of the Child[edit]

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

Delete since WP is not a text repository. Not sure if it is a copy vio. An assoc article exists. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:51, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary verbatim text reproduction, possible copyright violation. Andrea105 (talk) 01:08, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to Wikisource, where it would be suitable if it's a free text. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 01:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — it's already there. Polemarchus (talk) 04:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have put the article up for a speedy deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Billy The P[edit]

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

Unsourced vanity article that does not establish notability GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. —GaryColemanFan (talk) 00:48, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, lack of WP:RS to establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 01:10, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried googling his real name (Billy Donald ) and couldn't find anything either. Ludlom (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete totally lacks notability MPJ-DK (50% Done) Talk 02:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails almost every WP rule I can think of! !! Justa Punk !! 12:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Voss[edit]

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

Vanity page for completely unnotable musician, as evidenced by orphan-page status and broken citation links to sources that were not noteworthy to begin with. Google yields no significant coverage. Overall, fails WP:MUSIC. Fatpl (talk) 00:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- notability has not been established; MySpace pages aren't reliable sources :) Andrea105 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find significant coverage for this musician. Joe Chill (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'm unable to find any in-depth independent coverage; does not appear to pass WP:MUSICBIO. Gongshow ^Talk 00:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everett Phipps Babcock[edit]

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

Delete per WP:CREATIVE. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, references adequately establish notability. Andrea105 (talk) 00:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Groundsquirrel13 (talk) 01:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This requires some further digging but it is fairly clear to me that the subject is notable under WP:BIO. There were already a few sources in the article and I have found some more. In particular, there is an in-depth and detailed article about him in Los Angeles Times, July 2008[49] that discusses significance of his architectural contributions. There is also this document[50], from the City Council of Pasadena website, a portion of which (pp. 4-6) deals with Babcock and his work. There is a fair amount of biographical info there (e.g. it says that he died in May 1928 when a tonsils removal surgery went wrong) and it also says there that Los Angeles Times and Pasadena Star News had run obituaries about his death. I think this entry does pass WP:BIO. Nsk92 (talk) 02:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per nsk92's LA Times find. If a pre-internet architect is being discussed 80 years after his death, that architect is notable. Also, having a building listed on the NRoHP sems to meet WP:CREATIVE #3 and/or #4a. Vulture19 (talk) 05:07, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sources used + Nsk's link show the subject clearly meets our notability standards. LadyofShalott 08:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - has received coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Los Angeles Times and The New York Times ([51]). The leftorium 12:04, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes WP:CREATIVE. Joe Chill (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a useful article. It has sources. There seems no reason to delete it.--Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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